Skip to content

Kentucky Sports Radio

University of Kentucky Basketball, Football, and Recruiting news brought to you in the most ridiculous manner possible.

BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: NCAA Tournament Conspiracy Theorists are Dumb

Image result for conspiracy theorist jones

I’d love to write something about the SEC Tournament and what it means and how fun the event is and how much Kentucky has dominated it but I can’t resist taking the bait of all the weak-minded people out there who are looking for any reason to play to us vs. the world card coming into the tournament.  We hear 2 things EVERY SINGLE YEAR during this week:

  1. Kentucky is going to get screwed with it’s draw
  2. Duke is going to get it easy with their draw

In an era of fake news, this just has to be addressed.  I look at both of those statements above.  I compared the miles traveled by both Duke and Kentucky in each tournament since Calipari arrived (sans 2013 since UK didn’t make it).  And then I looked at the draw of the 2 teams when they have been seeded the same, which has been 3 times.  Because to compare how much the committee “screws” UK and “helps” Duke the only fair comparison is when they are the same seed line.  I looked at the Kenpom rankings to see how good each opponent at the highest seed line possible was compared to the other teams at that seed line.

2016
Kentucky (4-seed, Des Moines and Philadelphia): 1,295 miles
Duke (4-seed, Providence and Anaheim): 3,177 miles

Kentucky Path (4-seed)
13-seed: 3rd best
5-seed: 2nd best
1-seed: 1st best
2-seed: 4th best

Duke Path (4-seed)
13-seed: 2nd best
5-seed: 4th best
1-seed: 4th best
2-seed: 3rd best

*Kentucky with easier opponent 2 out of 4 rounds, Duke 2 out of 4 rounds
—————————————————————

2015
Kentucky (1-seed, Louisville and Cleveland): 411 miles
Duke (1-seed, Charlotte and Houston): 1,316 miles

Kentucky Path (1-seed)
16-seed: 4th best
8-seed: 3rd best
4-seed: 4th best
2-seed: 4th best

Duke Path (1-seed)
16-seed: 3rd best
8-seed: 1st best
4-seed: 3rd best
2-seed: 3rd best

*Kentucky with easier opponent 4 out of 4 rounds
———————————————————————

2014
Kentucky (8-seed, St. Louis and Indianapolis): 526 miles
Duke (3-seed, Raleigh and Indianapolis): 630 miles
———————————————————————

2012
Kentucky (1-seed, Louisville and Atlanta): 459 miles
Duke (2-seed, Greensboro and Atlanta): 433 miles
———————————————————————

2011
Kentucky (4-seed, Tampa and Newark): 1,529 miles
Duke (1-seed, Charlotte and Anaheim): 2,652 miles
———————————————————————

2010
Kentucky (1-seed, New Orleans and Syracuse): 1,406 miles
Duke (1-seed, Jacksonville and Houston): 1,657 miles

Kentucky Path (1-seed)
16-seed: 2nd best
8-seed: 2nd best
4-seed: 1st best
2-seed: 2nd best

Duke Path (1-seed)
16-seed: 4th best
8-seed: 1st best
4-seed: 3rd best
2-seed: 4th best

*Duke with easier opponent 4 out of 4 rounds
——————————————————————-

So just a quick recap.  Of the 6 years that both UK and Duke made the NCAA Tournament, Kentucky was placed in regionals where they had to travel less in 5 of 6 years.  In the 1 year that Duke had to travel less that was by a total of 26 miles.  

In the 3 years in which the 2 teams were seeded the same, thus the most accurate comparison of if the committee favors Duke and screws Kentucky, here were the numbers on matchups that each team in theory would have had if they had played the highest seed possible:

Kentucky (12 total opponents)
4th best at their seed line: 4 times
3rd best at their seed line: 2 times
2nd best at their seed line: 4 times
1st best at their seed line: 2 times

Duke (12 total opponents)
4th best at their seed line: 4 times
3rd best at their seed line: 5 times
2nd best at their seed line: 1 time
1st best at their seed line: 2 times

Losers make excuses.  Ultra losers make made up excuses.  Claiming the NCAA Tournament selection committee tries to screw Kentucky makes you an ultra loser because it just doesn’t exist.  They have been given consistently good locations to play at.  And their draw has been nearly equal to the draws that Duke has been given.  So if you also believe that Duke is given consistently easy paths to the Final Four then you have to agree that Kentucky does as well, right?

Here’s the point: Kentucky has been given a seed below what they deserved once in the Calipari era, and that was last year.  What other year were they screwed?  They haven’t been.  Duke gets to play in North Carolina all the time, right?  The tournament has been in Louisville 3 times and Kentucky has played there twice.  The bias doesn’t exist.  So don’t make it up.  Or you sound like a loser.

Article written by Bryan the Intern

56 Comments for BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: NCAA Tournament Conspiracy Theorists are Dumb



  1. KYcats11
    7:20 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    I’m sorry but this was a waste of time. Just by the eye test duke most of the time gets an easier team.



    • JoeMoney333
      7:35 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      All the more to his point. The “eye test” is often just used to justify one’s preconceived notions. If you would like to put forth some different statistical or factual data to back up your claims I would be interested. Everyone is free to have opinions but don’t make the mistake of thinking that all opinions are equal.



    • dnabb22
      10:23 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      If we wanted another Jerry Tipton we would be reading the Herald. We come to KSR to read pro UK things or at least things written by people who KNOW a little about sports. I hope Matt fires BTI because this dude is a Moron and Im tired of him writing pathetic hit pieces and ended them by calling UK fans Losers. Get his dumb ass on the air and let fans call in and debate him. I for one would come in person and debate him and EAT him alive. I would literally embarrass this douche.



  2. IstandUPatGames
    7:33 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    BTI, I know that most of y’all at KSR don’t realize it, but it is a fact (not an alternative one, but a real fact) that the earth revolved, Kentucky was good at basketball, and Dook caught breaks even before John Calipari arrived in Lexington.



  3. ukjaybrat
    7:35 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    “Kentucky has been given a seed below what they deserved once in the Calipari era”
    2014 – 8 Seed !?!?
    2016 – 4 seed

    “Duke gets to play in North Carolina all the time, right? The tournament has been in Louisville 3 times and Kentucky has played there twice.”
    – Duke has been playing in North Carolina for decades. Louisville is a new thing. going forward, yes it looks like we will get that benefit as well.

    If you look beyond the numbers. beyond the seeds they play, the actual teams duke gets matched up with are what create the “easy path” they get most years
    Look at 2010, they got an overrated villanova as their 2 seed that ended up losing in the second round to a garbage west coast team. They got purdue in the Sweet 16. one of the weakest purdue teams i’ve seen in years! Baylor in the Elite 8? Baylor was a decent team that year but come on. that’s a cake walk for an Elite 8 game.

    In 2011, they got the might mighty powerhouse San Diego St as their 2 seed. Thank god they didn’t make it far enough to play them or that might have been another final four for those scumbags.

    In 2015, they got another powerhouse for a 2 seed. oh look. gonzaga. that’s perennially the most overrated team in college basketball. beat up on all the garbage teams in your garbage conference and steal a top seed from a more deserving team. i see you bulldogs.

    Not to mention their 3 seed that year was the way overseeded iowa state cyclones that dropped their first game of the tournament. i watched that game. THEY SUCKED. And who di dthey get for their sweet 16 game? the winners of the powerhouse programs Georgetown and Utah! OORAH!!!

    Don’t take numbers in a vacuum to argue the fact that dook doesn’t get preferential treatment. that’s too much evidence to be a coincidence.



    • ukjaybrat
      7:38 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      and that’s just since cal got here…. duke has always gotten easy roads to the final four



    • FlySoup
      8:55 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Why didn’t uk deserve an 8 seed in 2014? Who did we beat besides u of l? I don’t even think we were ranked at the end of the season.



    • ukjaybrat
      9:26 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Here are just a few articles from that time that all claim uk was a bit underseeded. The problem as mentioned in one of those articles is that at the time, the NCAA was explicitly told to ignore recent history and take the entire season into account for seeding purposes. But that completely ignores that kentucky was one of the hottest teams at that time.

      http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/kentuckys_8-seed_by_ncaa_can_b.html

      http://da.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/27/kevin-kugler-kentucky-is-not-your-average-8-seed/

      http://da.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/24/mothership-ot-kentucky-best-8-seed-in-long-time-shockers-prove-they-belong/

      I could go on and on. but my point is pretty well established.



    • catsarerunnin
      9:29 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Ask the coach of Wichita St. about the 8 seed thing.



    • ukjaybrat
      9:32 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      i posted a pretty lengthy response including lots of links. but it was moderated. and BTI doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to go unmoderate stuff. Let’s try again without links and you can do the research yourself if you are so inclined:

      “Here are just a few articles from that time that all claim uk was a bit underseeded. The problem as mentioned in one of those articles is that at the time, the NCAA was explicitly told to ignore recent history and take the entire season into account for seeding purposes. But that completely ignores that kentucky was one of the hottest teams at that time.”



    • FlySoup
      9:34 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Just because they upset some teams doesn’t mean they were deserving of a higher seed. I’ll ask again, what did UK do during that year to deserve a seed higher than an 8?



    • FlySoup
      9:37 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      ukjaybrat – ha recent history? the cats lost 3 out of the last 4 games in the regular season. Then they won 2 out of 3 in the sec tourney. They shouldn’t have even made the tourney if all they were looking at was recent history



    • ukjaybrat
      9:41 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      nvm two of those losses were to the #1 overall team in the country and final four team. on the road and by 1 point in the sec tournament championship game. looks the facts are out there. i tried to share them with you as links but the auto-mod blocked them. you can go see for youself or keep arguing. i don’t care



    • ukjaybrat
      9:45 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      that team had 10 losses. 3 of them were to the best team in the country. (i know you can’t just DO this) but take away those three losses… go back and look through brackets in history, 2 and 3 seeds regularly have 6-8 losses. we fall squarely in that range. we certainly weren’;t deserving of a 2-3 seed. but EIGHT !?



    • catsarerunnin
      9:51 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Ask Gregg Marshall Mr. Soup about the 8 seed.



    • FlySoup
      9:59 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      You just keep telling me that some of their losses weren’t that bad. I’d like for you to come up with a reason why they earned a higher seed than an 8 that year. I honestly could see them as a 6-7 but when I look at their resume, I can’t argue with an 8. They only beat 3 other teams that were in the tourney that year. Two 11 seeds and a 4 seed (one neutral site and two home games, all taking place before the third week of January, so thankfully the committee took the whole season into account).



    • FlySoup
      10:14 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      cats- of course you can look at the tournament results and say a team should have been seeded higher or lower. I guess UCONN should have been the #1 overall seed that year? What I want to know is what did the cats do BEFORE the tourney to deserve a better seed.



    • ukjaybrat
      10:25 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      fine. want to be that dense? let’s look at the teams that supposedly did better than uk
      #7 Oregon: 23-9 – 1 win over ranked opponent
      #7 New Mexico: 27-6: 2 wins over “ranked” oppoents (the mighty san diego state)
      #6 UMass: 24-8: 1 win over ranked opponent (oh look it was New Mexico, also overseeded)
      #5 Saint Louis: 26-6, ZERO wins vs ranked opponents
      #5 VCU: 26-8: 2 wins over ranked opponents (one of them being saint louis, also overseeded)

      you can nitpick about our results and schedule, but you can’t ignore any of these teams deserved the seed they got ahead of kentucky that year. we were underseeded. #flysoup’sFactsAreOptional



    • FlySoup
      11:22 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      No reason to get upset, man. I was just trying to get you to explain why you thought our 8 seed was so outrageous. Not sure why you are saying my facts are optional, what did I say that was incorrect or misleading? You’re right, these teams beat between zero and two ranked teams throughout the year and were ranked ahead of us. We only beat one ranked team all year. So I feel we should have been ranked right along with these teams and I honestly can’t say if we deserved a better seed or not compared to them. Maybe they were playing hotter than us at the end of the season? I dunno



    • ukjaybrat
      11:33 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      “No reason to get upset”
      who said i was upset?

      “Not sure why you are saying my facts are optional,”
      because you have yet to use any – just opinion and conjecture. and expect to win a disagreement with that alone. that’s not how you garner support for your opinions. just saying.

      “So I feel we should have been ranked right along with these teams”
      yet they were all ranked ahead of us. so if you think we should have been ranked right there with them, i think that basically proves what I’ve been saying the last 2 hours.



    • FlySoup
      11:45 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Calling me dense and saying my facts were optional seemed like you were letting emotion get the better of you during a disagreement. I apologize for misreading that, sometimes it’s hard to tell how to read someone’s comments online.

      I have offered some facts, though. Such as “They only beat 3 other teams that were in the tourney that year. Two 11 seeds and a 4 seed,” “the cats lost 3 out of the last 4 games in the regular season. Then they won 2 out of 3 in the sec tourney” and an earlier comment about not being ranked at the end of the season, which we weren’t. Those were all facts that supported my argument, not at all opinion and conjecture.

      Yes, I do feel like we should have been ranked right along with those teams. I did say earlier that I could have seen them as a 6-7, but I couldn’t argue with an 8. They had an average season. What is your argument that those teams deserved to be seeded lower than Kentucky? Remember, our only win over a ranked team that year was a team in the AAC.



    • ukjaybrat
      12:02 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      con·jec·ture
      kənˈjekCHər/Submit
      noun
      1.
      an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

      “the cats lost 3 out of the last 4 games in the regular season. Then they won 2 out of 3 in the sec tourney”
      – ignores the fact that 2 of those were against the best team in the country (incomplete information = conjecture)

      “Remember, our only win over a ranked team that year was a team in the AAC.” yes this is a fact, but its relevance is your opinion
      Between SanDSU, New Mexico, Saint Louis and Umass, they have 1 win over a power 5 conference. #25 virginia. you’re telling me all of those ranked wins are better than Louisville who admittedly WAS i nthe AAC, for one whole year between the Big East and ACC because of contracts alone and not because of lack of talent).

      “They only beat 3 other teams that were in the tourney that year” – yes but a lot of our losses were against teams in the tournament i.e. Quality losses. those other teams up there i mentioned? they didn’t have near as many quality losses. (so more incomplete information = more conjecture)

      so yes, you used factual statements, but those statements were out of context, half-truths and therefore were opinions and conjecture. as i have shown you.



    • FlySoup
      12:24 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      I didn’t ignore that they couldn’t beat Florida that year. If they could have won ONE game in three against the gators then we would be on the same page about how they were shafted. They couldn’t perform; they were average. They received an 8 seed because they had very few quality wins on their resume and without quality wins, quality losses don’t mean anything.

      I feel my comments were factual and within the context of our conversation, but I supposed we just have to disagree on that point.



    • ukjaybrat
      12:42 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      the exact same arguments you are making against kentucky being ranked higher could be made for all of those other teams listed above. You say kentucky SHOULD have been an 8, then what justifies any of those other teams being ranked higher than an 8? that is what you are ignoring. you are taking in a vacuum that yes, kentucky underwhelmed for most of the season. but ignoring the fact that all those teams head of us where just as underwhelming and deserved no better. but some of them got 5 seeds. you can’t argue that. it’s undeniable. and that’s basically my point



    • catsarerunnin
      1:13 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Wow this is awesome!



    • FlySoup
      1:37 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Fair enough. I just don’t think we can complain about an 8 seed when our only “quality” wins are against louisville, providence, and tennessee. Ya, the other teams might not have done much better, or even worse, but life’s not fair and we weren’t owed anything by the selection committee because we swung and missed on almost every opportunity we had.



  4. catsarerunnin
    7:50 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    Well I love waking up in the morning,eat breakfast,drink my coffee and being told by an intern at my favorite sports site that I may be not just be a loser but an ultra loser. I guess I’m back in the “basket of deplorables”.



    • runningunnin.454
      7:59 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Wonder if they need an intern at DSR?



    • ukjaybrat
      8:01 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      it’s been a while since bti has had a super hot take. had to double (triple?) down on the hotness this morning



    • CATandMONKEY
      10:27 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      You know he’s not an intern anymore? He’s been a producer and cohost on WHAS. Doesn’t actually make him not suck but the intern title is now a running joke…for the last 4 or 5 years.



    • catsarerunnin
      11:03 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      WHAS still exists?



    • ukjaybrat
      11:17 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      yes i know. but he still sucks 🙂



  5. ukbradstith
    8:04 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    Perhaps the best post I’ve ever read on this site. UK, even more than Duke, draws ratings, and we are unmatched in putting butts in seats. Please don’t whine on selection Sunday, it makes you sound like, well, a loser. I hate Duke but they don’t get any more favors than UK. We play in the SEC, not the ACC. It’s pretty probably that our conference records would be switched if we were in the ACC and Duke in the SEC.



    • catsarerunnin
      8:08 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      “Pretty probably” are fightin words.



    • stoopstroops
      8:30 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      If we put butts in seats and get high rating than we are doing them a favor, not the other way around. BTI address that UK has only been seeded lower than deserved once in this time period but neglects to mention how many time Duke has been seeded higher than deserved, because it would ruin his post.



  6. ukbradstith
    8:12 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    if its pretty probably, you know it must be true.



    • catsarerunnin
      8:17 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Like if I tell the boss I pretty probably won’t be at work tomorrow??



  7. WatchutalkinboutWillis
    8:22 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    Once again BTI tries to do a “statistical analysis” and leaves out WAY too many criteria! Location and matchups are a huge deal. I don’t care if Duke plays the 1st best team out of 4…they may actually matchup well against that team. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist on this topic. I don’t think it is necessarily intentional…but more often than not Duke appears to have an easier route to the final four than UK does to me. If you think that makes me sound like a loser than so be it…but at least I didn’t spend a ton of time drawing a hard conclusion from incomplete research.



  8. stoopstroops
    8:25 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    Kentucky has gotten easier paths when deserved. My question is how many times has Duke been seeded higher than they deserve? The easier path may not be a complaint based on the teams they play but that they get seeded higher than they should be. Fact is Duke is the NCAA’s baby and they take care of them. They may also take care of UK because of money and ratings, but Duke gets the gets all the love.



  9. Sentient Third Eye
    8:31 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    This analysis has nothing to do with easy vs. hard draws because the mechanism the NCAA uses is under an over-seeding teams. BTI does not address this and thus embarasses himself by showing that he does not even understand what fans are even saying when they complain about seeding! MIght want to pay more attention next time.



  10. LivinTheDream33
    8:44 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    I really don’t understand what BTI was trying to do with this post. Seems like a lot of wasted time to me! Who cares who plays the 1st best 4 seed or the 4th best 4 seed. It comes down to a WHOLE lot more than that(how they match up, who they have played, what conference they come from, etc.). Who cares how many miles they travel. BBN shouldn’t have to wake up, on a Thursday at that, to read something that is in favor of those guys from Durham, NC!



  11. jonthes
    9:02 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    To administrator – got ‘not secure’ notice. Tubby had two teams that were screwed in the seeding – one his overall #1 seed that ended up playing Marquette, the teams and the sites were extremely rough for an overall one seed. And his next to last UK team was 13 in the RPI yet got an eight seed, and the worst eight seed, playing overall one seed UConn and nearly beating them (a couple of bonehead Rondo plays killed that). That same year champ Florida and FF worthy TENN and VANDY were in the same SEC division, which is no doubt how the NCAA justified that. Four FF worthy teams in one division. That was when the anti-Tubby stuff spread and it was and is ridiculous still. Lowest seed he ever got was eight, no NIT, the most consistent tournament coach we ever had. Pitino had a very early flameout against Marquette no one ever remembers, it wasn’t even televised.



    • ukjaybrat
      9:30 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      “hat same year champ Florida and FF worthy TENN and VANDY were in the same SEC division, which is no doubt how the NCAA justified that. Four FF worthy teams in one division. That was when the anti-Tubby stuff spread and it was and is ridiculous still. ”

      That happened a lot in basketball which is why the SEC moved away from divisions in conference play for basketball.



  12. JSimp
    9:08 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    BTI Sucks!



  13. BBNinUtah
    9:20 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    BTI, don’t try and ruin our fun argument with facts.



  14. ukfan4388
    9:23 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    One critical parameter that you left out of the computations is weighting the rounds. It is not a fair comparison when you give the same weight to the first round as the 4th. Getting a 1st seed in the 1st round and the 4th in the 4th round is a much easier path than getting the 4th seed in the 1st round and the 1st seed in the 4th round. I haven’t done the numbers to see if you argument still holds water. The same thing needs to be done on the miles. Although, I’m not one to buy into the distance thing. Kentucky and Duke both have a fan base that will either travel anywhere or enough fans where ever they play.



  15. kentuckyrld
    10:02 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    BTI, all I can say is that you are the same each and every time you write. You take a list of facts and either you have a conclusion already formed which you are trying to prove or you simply are not smart enough to interpret the facts you are given. I hope it is the first, but I fear…



  16. dnabb22
    10:13 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    This is the Worse story ever posted on KSR. I am a statistical professional for the State of Kentucky. And when I look at what he did, Im just laughing. First, there are at least 4 Factual errors, already pointed out by others. Second, he isnt showing you the actual TEAMS. He’s only showing you the ‘draw’ of S curve placing. Meaning he is only showing you for example who Uk and Duke WOULD be paired against as of the draw. He isnt mentioning the actual teams, and that OTHER teams who got screwed and dropped to a different seeding were put in our region.
    Like Louisville in as a 4 seed when they were supposed to be a 2, or, Notre Damn in 2015 as a 3 seed, supposed to be a 2.
    In 2015, UK was the number 1 overall seed. Had to play 5 West Virginia who was supposed to be a 4. Had to play 3 Notre Damn who was supposed to be a 2 and then 1 Wisconsin.
    Meanwhile Duke got:
    5 Utah who should have been a 6, 2 Gonzaga who never should have been a 2, they were a 4 at best, and then they played a freagin 7 seed in the final 4 because the top side of the bracket was so weak that Duke was guaranteed to get a weak team in the final 4.

    BTI one more thing, not 1 person on here EVER complains about miles traveled. You are quickly becoming unreliable.



    • catsarerunnin
      11:05 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Well since you work for the government it MUST be true….



    • Bluebloodtoo
      12:12 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Yes, he/she works for the government so he/she must be corrupt… seriously?



    • catsarerunnin
      1:14 pm March 9, 2017 Permalink

      Yes



  17. Bluebloodtoo
    11:40 am March 9, 2017 Permalink

    I don’t know about anybody else, but every time I hear someone call another person a “loser” I tend to focus on the person pointing the finger, rather than the person to which they are referring.