Two revelations for me (and a lot of other people) from the NCAA tourney:
1.) We came into this, thinking UK was the best team, by far. They were said to be a coin-flip's chance, more or less, to win the whole tourney. In fact, they were a coin-flip's chance, more or less, to win any of the last three games. Three coin flips is only a 10% shot to win the whole thing.
2.) We came into this, thinking that UK was the most talented team, by far. By the end of it, you have to wonder whether they were the most talented. (WI was talented, but probably gained more from a sum-of-its-parts factor-- whether from coaching, teamwork, chemistry, etc.) As for Duke: Who would casually take Harrison * 2, Ulis, and Booker over Jones * 2, Allen and Cook? Who would casually take Towns, WCS, Lyles and Dakari over Okafor, Winslow, Plumlee, and Jefferson? (If I had to pick, I'd take Duke's back court and UK's front court, I guess.)
Bottom line(s): a great, compelling season for UK; they would not have gone undefeated in a tough conference; and although they could have won the whole thing, they should not have been seen as prohibitive favorites-- if the favorite at all.