SportscenterU. Delk and Adrian Branch. Which Kentucky team is better?

[crawfords corner]

OK, Obviously there are tons of games left to be played this season so we can't make a complete comparison, but based on these 4 categories and what we've seen so far, How do you rate the two teams

Categories are: Points in the Pain, Perimeter scoring, Defense, Intangibles.

TD's breakdown was Points in the paint for this year's team and the other 3 categories for his 95-96 team.
Branch went with Points in the paint, defense, and Intangibles for 14-15 and perimeter for 95-96.

Delk's opinion on the defense was that the 94-95 team got a lot of steals and played pressure defense. Branch brought up that he thought the +10 rebounding margin for this team gave them the edge over the 95-96 team who had a rebound margin of +5.

So how would you break it down after 13 games this season? Will(Im not saying maybe, Im all in) be worth revisiting in 27 games from now.

 

[ukfan03]

It's good discussion but until this team wins a title and dominates the tournament like 96 I'll go with them.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Samwise Ganjee]

Originally posted by crawfords corner:
OK, Obviously there are tons of games left to be played this season so we can't make a complete comparison, but based on these 4 categories and what we've seen so far, How do you rate the two teams

Categories are: Points in the Pain, Perimeter scoring, Defense, Intangibles.

TD's breakdown was Points in the paint for this year's team and the other 3 categories for his 95-96 team.
Branch went with Points in the paint, defense, and Intangibles for 14-15 and perimeter for 95-96.

Delk's opinion on the defense was that the 94-95 team got a lot of steals and played pressure defense. Branch brought up that he thought the +10 rebounding margin for this team gave them the edge over the 95-96 team who had a rebound margin of +5.

So how would you break it down after 13 games this season? Will(Im not saying maybe, Im all in) be worth revisiting in 27 games from now.

Hmmm.....some interesting takes by both

Points in the paint is definitely 96--Walker, McCarty, Polk in there and they were good scorers, even out to the arc and behind it; very productive, more-so than Willie and Karl on one platoon and far and away superior to Lee and Dakari

Perimeter goes to this year. Delk was the only 3-point specialist on 96. This year has Aaron and Booker both, and Ulis and Andrew can also score from 3.

Defense....tough call. This year's team relies on protecting the rim. Delk's team never let the ball get across half-court if they could help it. I think I would give the nod to 96 here, too; but not because they prevented scores. No, it's because they took the ball and turned the turnover into points at a very high rate. That's how they managed to put 86 up on LSU in a half. And that, in my mind, also evens out the rebounding differential.

Intangibles? I'll give that to this year's team. They have more of a "family" spirit about them, seem to be having a good time and really enjoying each other. I don't think anybody that ever played for Rick ever felt much love for him and it showed.

Who would win?

96....but the season's not over yet, and this year's team still has some time to improve on its press and touch round the bucket

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

The 96 team was an offensive juggernaut that played good defense. This year's team is a defensive force that plays average offense. Even though they say defense wins championships, it's hard to pick.
The 96 team made it look effortless at time though.

 

[musrat59]

The 96 team was damn good but I have to see how this season plays out before I annoint them as the better squad.

 

[Seth C]

Originally posted by Samwise Ganjee:

Perimeter goes to this year. Delk was the only 3-point specialist on 96. This year has Aaron and Booker both, and Ulis and Andrew can also score from 3.





You're crazy. Delk shot 44% from 3 that season (93 makes). Anthony Epps was at 41%. Derek Anderson shot 39%. Jeff Shepherd hit 50%. Ron Mercer was at 34%. Mark Pope hit 35%. Walter McCarty shot 46% (28 made 3s).

The guys you listed as our shooters on this year's team? So far Aaron is shooting 27% from 3, but Booker is hitting 46%. Still, the 96 squad had 7 players who made over 1/3 of their three point attempts and 5 who hit at 39%+. They could shoot.

 

[Dirk2Bowie]

I'd take the 96 Champs because of their extremely high bb IQ, consistency and killer instincts. Haven't seen all those things yet from this version of Champs.

 

[Samwise Ganjee]

Originally posted by Seth C:

You're crazy. Delk shot 44% from 3 that season (93 makes). Anthony Epps was at 41%. Derek Anderson shot 39%. Jeff Shepherd hit 50%. Ron Mercer was at 34%. Mark Pope hit 35%. Walter McCarty shot 46% (28 made 3s).

The guys you listed as our shooters on this year's team? So far Aaron is shooting 27% from 3, but Booker is hitting 46%. Still, the 96 squad had 7 players who made over 1/3 of their three point attempts and 5 who hit at 39%+. They could shoot.

Pardon me, but I'm hardly crazy and I don't appreciate being insulted

As I wrote, Delk was the only 3-point specialist on the team. Period.

You will notice I did not mention Andrew Harrison, nor Dominique Hawkins, also guards on this year's team. Nor did I mention Karl Towns or Trey Lyles or Derek Willis--all of whom can hit some three's as well.

You, on the other hand, in order to make your point have emptied the bench on me. You may also recall, or maybe you are too young to know, that Jeff Shepherd played a far lesser role than Epps or Delk either one on the 96 team. In fact, he red-shirted in 97 because Mercer and DA were going to take all of his minutes.

I think it's pretty well documented that this year's team, so far, has not shot well from outside. I personally do not anticipate that this will continue, as the guys I noted are all darn good shooters.

And as I also said, there's still room for improvement from the current team; although at this point I wouldn't favor them over 96 in a game or series of games

 

[throatpoker]

Originally posted by Samwise Ganjee:

Intangibles? I'll give that to this year's team. They have more of a "family" spirit about them, seem to be having a good time and really enjoying each other. I don't think anybody that ever played for Rick ever felt much love for him and it showed.

I get what you're saying Cal vs Rick and the daddy figure, but you are wrong about this team having more of a "family" bond than the 96 team. It's well documented about how close the 96 team was, but here's just a snippet from DA:

"What was so great about our team, and this isn't a cliché statement,
but we did everything together. We went bowling together. We went to the
movies together. We ate together. We formed such a tight bond while we
grew into young men, and it is why we are all still so close to this
day."

If anything it's a tie because Cal does a good job of creating the "brothers keeper" mentality, but the 96 did it on their own, despite not having a quality father figure.

 

[Kampus Korner]

Originally posted by ukfan03:
It's good discussion but until this team wins a title and dominates the tournament like 96 I'll go with them.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Agreed. It's much too early to draw a conclusion.

 

[catfaninsc]

Originally posted by Kampus Korner:

Originally posted by ukfan03:
It's good discussion but until this team wins a title and dominates the tournament like 96 I'll go with them.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Agreed. It's much too early to draw a conclusion.

+1

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Sam, what are you talking about? The '96 team shot over 37% from 3. This year we are at 32%. '96 has a huge advantage there.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Originally posted by Samwise Ganjee:


Hmmm.....some interesting takes by both

Points in the paint is definitely 96--Walker, McCarty, Polk in there and they were good scorers, even out to the arc and behind it; very productive, more-so than Willie and Karl on one platoon and far and away superior to Lee and Dakari

Perimeter goes to this year. Delk was the only 3-point specialist on 96. This year has Aaron and Booker both, and Ulis and Andrew can also score from 3.

I like your take, but I would flip-flop one thing.

The 1996 interior was finesse. Walker loved to linger on the perimeter to start his offense. McCarty was undersized and struggled against bigger guys like Dampier. Pope has a great midrange shot, but he wasn't a bruiser. Mohammed wasn't a developed rotation player yet. This year's interior would win the battle of boards over the 1996 group and block their shot 6 to 8 times, and that's being conservative. If Pitino had someone like WCS on the 1996, they'd probably have been undefeated because he could guard Erick Dampier and also Camby - the two big men on the only two teams that beat Kentucky that year.


The 1996 backcourt and wing collection was as elite as they came. Epps wasn't going to score on folks, but he was a great passer, and had low turnovers. The rest of the backcourt constituted Anderson, Sheppard, Turner, and Edwards. Delk was single-handedly better than anyone in the current backcourt, and Anderson was lethal for the minutes he played (about 10 points per 18 to 19 minutes per game). Sheppard and Turner were solid off the bench. Edwards provided depth.


Then there were the times Mercer was in the game, out on the perimeter or flying to the hoop. If Booker gets credit for playing the three this year, and is still valued as a member of the perimeter, so should Mercer. Ron Mercer was the X-Factor that would give the 96 team the win.

 

[bigbluedon]

I will take the 96 team for a lot of the reasons above plus the fact that college basketball was a lot stronger back then.Far more really good teams than there are today.The one and done has really hurt college ball..The 96 team was once in a lifetime..Love that team.

 

[lawrencekash]

The 96 team until dethroned is still the king. If we go undefeated then I will concede to the 2015 but that has yet to happen.

 

[Abomb502Cat]

I don't care if this team does go undefeated, I'm still picking the 96' squad. That team destroyed teams with players that were better than anyone in college basketball period. Wake Forrest with Tim Duncan 83-63, Utah with Keith Vanhorn 101-70, beat 9 ranked teams, scored 86 in a half on the road, and we also beat every team that we played that year. The passing ,ferocious defense, and the overall Basketball IQ of that team was so much better. Not to mention that they were battle tested against those Arkansas teams. I'll put Wayne Turner on Andrew and make Andrew guard Wayne. Wayne would eat his lunch. The wing position can't even be discussed because this team has a 6'10 guy playing the 3. Ron Mercer would make them look bad. If 2014-2015 has an edge its in the paint, and that is due to sheer depth. Antoine Walker was 20-10 guy for over 10 years in the N.B.A. I do think that K.A.T and WCS both have potential to be better pros than most 96' guys but an actual game would be won by 95-96 IMO.

 

[fatguy87]

I'm taking '96.

This year's team is on watch though. They have a chance to be an all time great, especially if they undergo a similar offensive metamorphosis as the 2012 team.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

As good as our defense is, I think we need to improve our offense in order to win a title. Wisconsin and Duke may be the only teams we really have to worry about in the tourney, but they both have good enough offenses that they could beat us if we have another WVU type game.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Only a goof like Sam would prefer a 32% shooting 3 point team over one that shot 40% from three.

 

[BlueBomb]

'96 and, for me, it's not close.

 

[.S&C.]

96 would beat this squad 7 out of 10 or more. This squad Does not have the power of McCarty, Walker, and Anderson. Simply put without getting to into it, 96 can outshoot them and played a fierce defense I've not seen since. 96 could put 80+ points on you IN ONE HALF. His team struggles to score 80 for an entire game. Not only that, but what the hell are we talking about? 96 is the Sagarin rated top team of ALL TIME. until this team wins the tourney(which isn't a given yet at all) it's not even close to comparable.

This post was edited on 1/4 2:38 PM by .S&C.

 

[runt#69]

Can't make any kind of definitive comment on this until the season is over. Only thing I can say is (right now) is that the 96' Cats' were historically one of the best teams ever. This team has the potential to be in that conversation, most definitely, maybe even better, but they have to stay focused and bring home #9 before we can say they're better than 96'.

 

[LineSkiCat]

Clearly a lot of people here were students during that '96 team, some of the statements being made are ridiculous.

1. It's utterly IMPOSSIBLE to know how good any of the college basketball players will be, Kentucky or not. Are we going to just assume that Tim Duncan in '96 was the same Tim Duncan who won 4 titles for San Antonio? No. He wasn't. 2015 could be better, the same, or worse in terms of NBA talent. To claim you know one way or the other is laughable. It's not like the '97/'98 drafts were loaded with talent (Remember, Dirk and T-mac can't be counted as they never played college). I also don't subscribe to the idea that basketball in 90's, especially late 90's, had a better collection of talent as a whole than we do now. That's a whole different debate.

2. Some here won't pick 2014 regardless of going undefeated? Meaning 18-0 in SEC, running the SEC tourney, and taking out a few top4 seeds in the tournament? First 40-0 against a 2 loss '96 team? Ok, I guess. Anytime someone says "I won't pick this side no matter what they do!" usually means a bias is present.

It hasn't even been half the season for this team, who will undoubtedly get better, ESPECIALLY because they are largely freshman and sophomores. ALL of their games are drastically improving as the rate of growth is much faster for them as say a junior or senior, generally speaking. I get that the question was posed mid-season, so you take this team for what it is, right now. '96 could very well be better than this team.. maybe by a lot. but don't act like this is a forgone conclusion making unfounded predictions on the landscape of the game and current team.

And lord help the pro-'96 crowd if we beat an undefeated Duke to take the title...



This post was edited on 1/4 8:18 PM by LineSkiCat

 

[bigbluefattycat]

Lost in all of this is that yet another Cal UK team is knocking on the door of the 96 team. What is the count up to now? 3? Greatest of all time discussions. Think about that. Compared to the fab 5 last year. Compared to the greatest teams of all time this year. Walls team was up in the discussion for a minute. 2012 is still debatable. Cal is flat out owning college basketball right now.

 

[Samwise Ganjee]

Couple things then I'm through with this thread:

I picked 96 over 2015 as of right now, today; however, we all know the team this year is going to get better (including their 3 percentage)

I'm saying if I had to pick five guys to take to a 3-point shooting contest I'd pick Tony Delk, Booker, Aaron, Ulis and Andrew in that order. I'm not saying that DA and Mercer or even McCarty are bad shooters---clearly they are not. But if I had to pick five those are the guys that I'd take with me.

Lastly, if this team goes undefeated and meets an undefeated Duke team AND wins the championship in that run I will gladly proclaim them the "Greatest" Kentucky basketball team of all time. In fact, I'd be overjoyed to give them that title if they can accomplish that feat.

 

[crawfords corner]

Let's just remember this is supposed to be a fun topic to discuss. It's not serious. You don't win a million dollars for making the best point or getting the most "likes". Just something to discuss during a 10 day layoff.

 

[Samwise Ganjee]

^^^

Thanks for starting the thread. It's been a good one to speculate on, and fun to reminisce.

GBB!

 

[crawfords corner]

I had my moments in the past where I was a di*k to people. I just wish us UK fans did a better job of treating each other with more respect. Seems like we get in to goofy and unnecessary arguments. We have to fight enough with other fan bases. We shouldn't do it among ourselves.

Plus, my memory of 95-96 isn't something I can recall as vividly as most can so hearing about it all over again is always nice. It makes you remember things you might have forgotten. This team and it's potential is great perk of being a UK fan because it does allow us to reminisce and think big about it..

 

[BourbonBalz]

The 96 team was better. Period. Offensively that team was light years ahead of the current team and they were just as good defensively, but in a different way. Anyone that thinks this year's team is a better perimeter shooting team than the 96 team must not remember much about that team. It isn't even close. Almost every player on the 96 team could shoot from the perimeter, and five or more were fantastic shooters.

 

[Jkwo]

In another thread I came up with a set of standards for really dominant teams (mostly based on nitpicking that rival fans were doing to this '15 team). Here is how the two compare to this point (OOC only)


'96 UK
Merits
Win Margin: 20.2
Ranked teams beaten: 3
#14 UMD by 12
#16 GTech by 23
#25 UL by 23

Demerits
Losses: 1
#5 UMASS by 10
Single Digit Wins: 1
(unranked) Indiana by 7
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 2
UWGB by 12
Marshall by 19


'15 UK
Merits
Win Margin: 27.5
Ranked teams beaten: 4
#5 KU by 32 !
#6 Texas by 12
#21 UNC by 14
#4 UL by 8

Demerits
Losses: 0
Single Digit Wins: 1
#4 UL by 8
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 2
Columbia by 10
Buffalo by 19



In other words, the only argument that the '96 supporters can use to say that '96 was better (at this point in the year) is the "competition was better in the 90s" argument. And it's a perfectly fair point. But the track record is clearly better for '15 to this point, so to argue for '96, you have to strongly ride the fact that awesome players don't stay quite as long now.


And for you guys saying that '96 was just as good on defense, just stop it. It's sensible to compare '12 and '96 on defense. They are two of the better defensive teams in a long time in CBB.

To this point, however, '15 is the best defense in CBB history. You can use any kind of technical analysis to try to shimmy your way out, but the conclusion is inevitable. These guys are shutting people out at a rate, when adjusted for tempo, that has never been seen. Stop being disrespectful to what this team is doing.

By the same token, '15 isn't in the same universe as '96 on Offense. But like '96 on defense, '15 is a very good offensive team when they are hitting, and we all know that the slump wouldn't last forever (as with the last 3 games where we've shot well above 40% from 3). It doesn't matter if you have the best defense of all time - if you can't score well, you don't have the third highest win margin in CBB history over the hardest part of your schedule (as '15 UK does).


Both teams were better than the sum of their parts, and both had damn good parts. It's not an easy debate. They both steamrolled/are steamrolling.


But you guys who are saying "no way" about this team need to understand that this team has put up the strongest OOC performance since '91 UNLV. Don't believe me? Here are the numbers for the other best OOC teams of the past 25 years:


'91 UNLV - *Mixed Conference/OOC schedule* *Not a champion*
Merits
Win Margin: 33.3!
Ranked teams beaten: 0!

Demerits
Losses: 0
Single Digit Wins: 0!
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 0! (two were exactly 20, but anybody who criticizes a 20+ win is stretching. Gotta cut it off somewhere.)
----------------------------------------
'92 Duke - *Mixed Conference/OOC schedule*
Merits
Win Margin: 21.9
Ranked teams beaten: 3
#7 St. John's by 10
#18 UM by 3
#14 Gtech by 13

Demerits
Losses: 0
Single Digit Wins: 2
#18 UM by 3
(unranked) UVA by 6
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 3
FSU by 16
UMD by 17
BU by 10

----------------------------------------
'97 KU - *Not a champion*
Merits
Win Margin: 22.9
Ranked teams beaten: 2
#4 Cinci by 7
#17 UCLA by 13

Demerits
Losses: None
Single Digit Wins: 2
(unranked) San Diego by 7
#4 Cinci by 7
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 3
Santa Clara by 12
California by 18
Virginia by 17
----------------------------------------
'01 Duke
Merits
Win Margin: 24.9
Ranked teams beaten: 2
#9 Illinois by 1
#17 Temple by 25

Demerits
Losses: 1
#3 Stanford by 1
Single Digit Wins: 2
(unranked) Temple by 2
#9 Illinois by 1
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 1
Villanova by 13
----------------------------------------
'08 KU
Merits
Win Margin: 25.1
Ranked teams beaten: 1
#24 USC by 4

Demerits
Losses: None
Single Digit Wins: 3
(unranked) AZ by 4
#24 USC by 4
(unranked) GTech by 5
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 1
Depaul by 18
----------------------------------------
'09 UNC
Merits
Win Margin: 26.5
Ranked teams beaten: 2
#8 ND by 15
#13 MSU by 35 !

Demerits
Losses: 0
Single Digit Wins: 0 !
Other "Bad" wins (beating an unranked by under 20): 5
Penn by 15
Kentucky by 19 (May a hedgehog find shelter in Gillispie's butthole)
UCSB 17
Oral Roberts by 16
Evansville by 18



As you can see, either '91 UNLV or '15 UK had the best first 13 games, depending on what you value - most domination over any schedule (UNLV) or the second most domination, over the most high ranked opponents ('15 UK).

Now, '15 has to finish just as strong to be competitive in the conversation at the end of the year - there's still no guarantee they'll win the title.

But without a doubt, is either the best or second best UK team of all time along with '96 - we'll see. But to say it's "not debatable" is to admit ignorance of the facts.
This post was edited on 1/5 6:20 AM by Jkwo

 

[BluegrassBaron]

All of those statistics are fine and good. However, I saw that 1996 team play, and it was the best college basketball team I ever have seen in my life. And yes, that 1996 team would beat this team. The only UK team that I have seen that could play and maybe beat that 1996 team was in 2012. And no, this year's UK team doesn't beat the 2012 team either.

 

[Jkwo]

Originally posted by BluegrassBaron:
All of those statistics are fine and good. However, I saw that 1996 team play, and it was the best college basketball team I ever have seen in my life. And yes, that 1996 team would beat this team. The only UK team that I have seen that could play and maybe beat that 1996 team was in 2012. And no, this year's UK team doesn't beat the 2012 team either.

Yeah, because there aren't well established psychological phenomena regarding humans with their faulty and emotional minds examining things from the past and evaluating them in an imperfect way - oh wait, yes there are. Thanks, but no thanks on the nostalgia. '96 is too good to be watered down with that "we don't need them dadgum facts and numbers - let me tell you what I saw" nonsense. The stats back up their greatness. And if you want to argue '96 over '15, that's perfectly logical - but you either have to make the "stronger era" argument convincingly, or you have to project that '15 is going to fall apart down the stretch.

But I don't think that's all of what you're doing. You're also trying to pass off your eye test as just as valid as cold hard fact, which is what leads you to say things as silly as the bolded statement, to which my reply is..

Yes it does. Probably about 6 times out of 10. Their margins are way the hell better, against a schedule with more ranked teams, with no losses to this point (unlike 2012), and they were both playing in the same era. About 1/3 of 2012's games to this point in the season would have been considered duds for this team.


'12 was one of the 2-3 best teams of the decade preceeding them. You can argue that they were the best, but it's highly debatable.
They had 2 losses, handled most of their competition all year, won the championship, and the roster featured a young man who will be an all-time great in the sport.
Of course, all 3 of those facts are also true of '82 UNC, but nobody tries to argue their place with '96 UK, '91 UNLV, the Alcindor team, etc as the greatest of all time. And they shouldn't be, because they were an excellent team, but the numbers do not back up a greatest of all time argument.

On the other hand, if you don't understand that to this point '15 is looking like an all-time great team, then you either don't know the numbers, or you don't understand the numbers. Period.


This post was edited on 1/5 6:42 AM by Jkwo

 

[BluegrassBaron]

I never have said this UK team is not a great team. However, IMO, based on my OWN EYES, this team is not as good as either the 1996 or 2012 UK teams. I don't need scientific data to tell me this. I know it in my heart.

I'm as big as anybody on facts and statistics. However, sometimes the sum of the parts does not equal the end truth. Such is the case here. Do I hope this team ends up better than the 1996 or 2012 UK teams? You had better bet your ass that I do. However, as of right now, I just don't see it. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Peace.

P.S.- I still think this team is the best team in the country THIS season.





This post was edited on 1/5 6:57 AM by BluegrassBaron

 

[weatherbird]

I see this debate a lot, and for me, you have to compare these teams in one of two manners, either directly against each other, or how each team performed against the competition in front of them. Either way, the argument that the competition was better in yesteryear is just a way of trying to inject your opinion as fact. There is no true measure of whether teams were better in the late 90s than they are today. Until recently, and for some still yet, everybody was of the opinion that you needed experience to win the championship, but Cal has somewhat hushed that opinion, though not totally. So just because teams had juniors and seniors in the late 90s doesn't necessarily mean they were better just because they were older. But back to the topic at hand, if you are going to pit the two teams against each other, then you have to objectively compare the styles of play and such.

In a game against each other, I would take this year's team at this point for one reason, they rarely have live ball turnovers. If you study the '96 team, they didn't struggle often, but when they did it was for one reason, the other team didn't have live ball turnovers. While this team did have a few turnovers against UL, for the most part, they weren't the type of turnovers that you can quickly turn into points. The reason the '96 team struggled against UMass was exactly that reason, UMass didn't have live ball turnovers. What is funny is that most of the people that don't believe '15 is better than '96, probably also think that '15 Cats are much better than the '96 UMass team, a team that the '96 Cats struggled with.

If we are comparing seasons, then it is a no-brainer, as this team has yet to lose, and the '96 had already lost at this point. There is the argument that the '96 team lost to the #2 at the time, and this year's team hasn't played a #2 team yet. However, that loss came on a neutral court, while this year's team won at #4 UL in a true road game.

While I think it is too early to come to a conclusion about whether this team is better or not, one thing is for certain, if this team happens to go 40-0, then the debate is over, this team will be better. Argue all you want, but if this team goes 40-0, that will be something that most people believed impossible just a few years ago, and puts this team ahead of the '96 and '12 teams.

 

[nptb]

Originally posted by Samwise Ganjee:
Couple things then I'm through with this thread:

I picked 96 over 2015 as of right now, today; however, we all know the team this year is going to get better (including their 3 percentage)

I'm saying if I had to pick five guys to take to a 3-point shooting contest I'd pick Tony Delk, Booker, Aaron, Ulis and Andrew in that order. I'm not saying that DA and Mercer or even McCarty are bad shooters---clearly they are not. But if I had to pick five those are the guys that I'd take with me.

Lastly, if this team goes undefeated and meets an undefeated Duke team AND wins the championship in that run I will gladly proclaim them the "Greatest" Kentucky basketball team of all time. In fact, I'd be overjoyed to give them that title if they can accomplish that feat.

Anthony Epps and Ron Mercer as well were a lot better shooters than the twins imo. Ulis reminds me a lot of Epps in the way he runs the team when he's in.

I'm going with the 96 squad as I know that they won the ship and did it rather easily. Also, basketball in 96 was a lot better than basketball now. Everyone and their mamas could put the ball in the hoop. An open shot equaled running down to the other side of the court because it was going in. Don't forget that Arkansas, South Carolina, Florida and a few others were solid squads. Kentucky, Mississippi St and Arkansas were 3 of the best in the country.

 

[LineSkiCat]

Originally posted by nptb:

Also, basketball in 96 was a lot better than basketball now.

Again, why are people assuming this? Because of better shooters? Whose to say the defense isn't better now? I'd imagine that, by and large, there is more athleticism in today's game than 20 years ago.

The '96 college year wasn't exactly loaded with NBA talent (as shown through the 97 and 98 drafts). Sure, the SEC was better then, because this might be one of the worst years for the conference. But why are we just assuming the mid-to-late 90's was a better collection of talent than now? Keep in mind, this isn't the late 70's into the 80's, arguably the BEST era of basketball Pro or college.. The 90's is actually the start of some of the WORST basketball in history. Me-first, media driven, highlight reels.

THat's not to say 96 Kentucky was that.. far from it. They were a team, and one of the best in history, if not THE best. But, again, I'm not ready to say that the entire basketball landscape was batter, and more of a challenge, than it is now.. ESPECIALLY when we just hit the mid-way point into the season.