Just How Good is Big Blue

All season long Kentucky has been lauded as destiny's child.  A team that is guaranteed to win the title.  A team that is going to go undefeated.

I think every non-Kentucky fan instantly dismissed this as overhype, the media trying to drum up story lines, and something to be quickly dismissed.  After all Kentucky did not win the championship last year, Kentucky was beaten 3 times by Florida last year.

However some of the usual "Kentucky isn't that good" arguments don't hold up.

• They're too young
• They aren't.  Not this year. SO many starters coming back, the Harrison twins, who have already proved they have ice in their veins are still there.  Cauley-Stein is back and way way better than ever.
• Calipari is a great recruiter but not a great coach
• Anyone that watched Kentucky early in the year, and late in the year knows that they have grown leaps and bounds.  They are a titanic force.  Lyles and Towns have gotten better. Coach Cal trusts Ulis more.  The platoon system has been abandoned.
• Plus this should never be a point against Coach Cal.  He is a winner.  He won at UMass, he won at Memphis, he's winning at Kentucky
• Their schedule is soft
• This one I do buy a bit.  The SEC is weak.  There is no "Florida" like last year.  There is no great Missouri team gunning for them.  It is just Kentucky.  
• I typically discredit the early season games, as teams change so much over the course of the season, but in this case Kentucky is the one that has changed, and changed for the better.
• And last year, even though they did lose games, they still made it to the Finals

Back to the craziest thing about Kentucky this year, just how much better they have gotten over the course of the year.  Everyone knew they had the talent from the get go, but no one knew how well they would gel, and how well Cal would coach.

They are currently the odds on favorite to win the NCAA title (after opening the season at 9:5).  That differential is a huge swing.  And the fact they are odds on favorite is definitely out of the ordinary.  To give some context, when they were the favorites and eventual champions in 2012 they were 5:2 favorites.

It's hard to argue with the odds though.  Every other contender has shown major weaknesses throughout the year.  Duke/UVA both lost in the ACC tourny.  Villanova plays in a weak conference and is undersized.  Arizona can't score the basketball.  Wisconsin does not match up well against Kentucky's size. Gonzaga is Gonzaga.

However - if you believe Kentucky is going to win the whole tourney it probably makes more sense to bet UK on the moneyline and roll over your winnings then bet money they will win the whole tournament.  It also amplifies the dilemma associated with picking the favorite in bracket pools.  If you pick someone besides Kentucky, and they win, you will almost certainly win your pool, but if Kentucky wins, you will finish at the very bottom of your pool.  Classic risk/reward, game theory scenario.  In a small pool it makes sense to pick Kentucky, in a big pool thee payoff associated with a Wisconsin or Nova pick may be worth it.