Why are we the consensus pick to get upset in the first round

[NotAnAlum]

Digger and Knight pick against us on the selection show.  Mike and Mike were saying we are a likely upset.  Is it just the aura of Kentucky or does our NCAA rep proceed us.  It would be nice to get some respect.

[Marquette_g]

I would say it stems from the fact that this team has laid some eggs throughout the year and in the last two tournaments.  If you are picking upsets why not go with a team that has been upset in the past?

[Muhoops85]

They have to win a game in the tournament to get respect.  Unfortunately, their MO is to arrive at the arena at the same time as their opponent yet start the game so much later than their opponent does.

[Avenue Commons]

The aura of Kentucky and our recent history of first round losses makes for us as an easy "target" for an upset. That's fine with me. Hopefully it adds fuel to our boys' fire to go out and drive Kentucky into the ground.

[Bling]

MU#5 vs Tulsa#12, 1st round in Saint Louis 2002, late comeback falls short.  did not call time out to set up play with seconds left and chance to win.  i think TT misses a 3 in which D Wade tried to alley-oop it in

MU#3 in 2003 goes to Final Four.

MU#7 vs Alabama#10, 1st round in 2006 in San Diego, horrible start again and late come back falls short.  Novak with great look to tie the game at the end.  MU lets Felix go 8/11 on 3.

MU#8 vs Michigan State#9, 1st round in 2007 in North Carolina.  No 2pt FGs in the first half.  We were shell shocked and absolutely dominated in the worst MU game I have ever witnessed.

Why wouldn't the "experts" pick us to be upset?

I disagree and see this being the year that somebody, hopefully one of the 3 Amigos, steps up and plays with some balls.  If we can get over this hump of the 1st round I can see us making some noise

[Markusquette]

I completely agree that we are always a good pick to be upset just based on the most recent tournament play of Marquette.  I don't see us losing, but then again any team can lose.  Marquette fought hard in the conference tournament, and with a healthy McNeal, we a in a much better situation than last year.  Also, Lazar has stepped up big this season which will help in the tournament.  As long as we can get decent production from our bigs, have at least one player go off in each game, and not get into early foul trouble, we can beat any team in the country.  I just hope that each player plays with heart and confidence.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hayward fizzled out second round vs. Stanford (assuming they win) just because of his limited production in our bigger games this season (GU, Louisville).

[BuzzSucksSucks]

They need to fight like warrior poets.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They have to win a game in the tournament to get respect.  Unfortunately, their MO is to arrive at the arena at the same time as their opponent yet start the game so much later than their opponent does.

That's our MO?  Hmmm, interesting.  For some games, yes, for others no.  Sort of like Kentucky doing the same thing.  Go figure.

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU#5 vs Tulsa#12, 1st round in Saint Louis 2002, late comeback falls short.  did not call time out to set up play with seconds left and chance to win.  i think TT misses a 3 in which D Wade tried to alley-oop it in.  Many coaches don't call timeouts in that situation, doesn't let the defense get set.  Tulsa was a ridiculous 12 seed with a RPI of 34...piss poor on the committe's part.

MU#3 in 2003 goes to Final Four.

MU#7 vs Alabama#10, 1st round in 2006 in San Diego, horrible start again and late come back falls short.  Novak with great look to tie the game at the end.  MU lets Felix go 8/11 on 3.  MU Actually took the lead in the second half but couldn't hold it.

MU#8 vs Michigan State#9, 1st round in 2007 in North Carolina.  No 2pt FGs in the first half.  We were shell shocked and absolutely dominated in the worst MU game I have ever witnessed.

Why wouldn't the "experts" pick us to be upset?

I disagree and see this being the year that somebody, hopefully one of the 3 Amigos, steps up and plays with some balls.  If we can get over this hump of the 1st round I can see us making some noise

[UK CAT]

Well, unfortunately for us, UK also has a tendency to show up on time but not start until about 10 minutes into the game. If MU is the same way we might have a halftime score of 10-10.

You guys have had a tough time in the past, so you're an easy target to say upset to. That and the fact that has already been pointed out that Kentucky is Kentucky and all the majesty that goes with it. Honestly, it's nice to know people are aware of our tradition but it can really get in the way sometimes, and this is one of them. A lot of times teams get caught up in playing the aura of UK and not the team. Announcers get caught up in it as well. This UK team is ranked #39 in the country but wait until the game comes on TV and see if the announcers don't comment about the tradition of UK more than they do the team.

I understand that it sounds like a nice problem to have, and really it's not a problem at all, I have overstated that aspect, but it would be nice if people would look at the team first instead of the mystical aura around UK.

Sorry if that sounds like I'm complaining. I don't mean it to come off that way.

[mviale]

I betting man would say 1 and done.

[MUSF]

It is the Kentucky name.

Vitale picks Kentucky every year, to the final four when they are good and to the sweet sixteen when they are down.

I agree that it may make sense to pick against us based on recent history but I gurantee that Dickie V, Digger, and Mike&Mike don't remember our recent tournament history.

They see the name Kentucky and get a hard on.

How many "experts" picked us to beat Kentucky in 2003?

[UK CAT]

Funny you should say that they see the Kentucky name and get a hard on.

We say the same thing about well...espn...and Duke and the ACC.

[CTWarrior]

Funny you should say that they see the Kentucky name and get a hard on.

We say the same thing about well...espn...and Duke and the ACC.

Maybe it's Ashley Judd.  Anyway, there is no question that ESPN analysts wet themselves about the ACC (particularly Duke/UNC) more than anything else, though Bilas, ironically enough, seems to be the exception to that rule.