UK 1996 vs. 2012

I'm going with the 96 team due to depth and there ability to shoot the three. That was one of, if not the, best college team I've ever seen in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by HammerTime

It's extremely tough to debate but the fact that the 2012 team has Davis puts them ahead IMO. He is so dominate on the glass and on the defensive side of the ball.

He would make a huge difference but the depth and the outside game of 96 puts them over 12 for me.

Originally Posted by Original Rookie

Pretty cool stat, both teams beat every team they played.

What?

Originally Posted by bugatti

What?

Pretty sure he means say like 96' losing to UMASS early then beating them in The Final Four, same for Miss St. who they had beaten but got beat in Championship game. This year Indiana early avenged in tourney, beat Vandy 2 times. Zero teams from either year can say they got the best of the cats that season.

Originally Posted by Lucky Charms

Yeah, Nazr was still an over wieght "project" back then. I beleive Mills was a walk on too.

I'd have to give the edge to 2012 just based on being more athletic especially in the post. And like dolamite said, the game has certainly evolved since then. That '96 UK team didn't play against the teams that this '12 UK team did. The talent in college basketball since then has spead out. Back in '96 five star players used to come to UK to sit on the bench. Now, if you can't have playing time available for them they will find another place to go. I'd have to give UK '12 the slight edge.

Is the bolded really true? UMass had Marcus Camby. They were little known until '92.

Tim Duncan and supporting cast were on the Wake Forest Team. I didn't see a Tim Duncan or Marcus Camby talent on any team this year.

Though UK never played them it was also the year of Ray Allen at UConn, Allen Iverson at Georgetown, and a Kansas squad with Paul Pierce, Lafrentz and Pollard. Utah had Keith Van Horne and Andre Miller. Stephan Marbury led Georgia Tech.

Both teams were obviously great, but I beleive the '96 team is better, mainly because of depth. That team is one of the deepest with talent at the college level ever and is one of the best all time in my opinion.

12 Team shot the ball at 49% which is right around the same percentage as the 96 team, also shot 38% from 3 and I believe the 96 squad was right around 39%. 96 team had around 180 blocks where as 12 had around 340ish. 96 had depth as far as players that would become good later but how many of them were good players in 96. Mills and Nazr were not contributers in 96 and any one that acts like Mills could play with this 12 team is just silly. I'm not saying it's one or the other but I'm sure glad both teams in the discussion were UK teams.

I think what a lot of people are not accounting for is '12 ablity to defend the three ball. '96 would have had a really hard time getting in a rythem against '12. On the defensive side is where the game has evolved from then until now. Championship teams do not give up points (IU vs. UK 2012x2 is the exception).

Originally Posted by Lucky Charms

I think what a lot of people are not accounting for is '12 ablity to defend the three ball. '96 would have had a really hard time getting in a rythem against '12. On the defensive side is where the game has evolved from then until now. Championship teams do not give up points (IU vs. UK 2012x2 is the exception).

But the '96 team also locked down Wake Forest to 63 points, UMass in the 60's and Syracuse to 67. They played very well on the defensive side.

As to Sportsfan's look at 3 point shooting: the '96 team attempted 266 while this year's Cats made 225 while playing two more games thatn the '96 club. That is a big difference added to they shot at around 40%.

It's a great debate to have but I'm not sure the game has "evolved" as much. In fact I think jump shooting appears worse now than ever before. If you can sink a larger % of jump shots, it makes up for those teams that "have to" drive to the rim.

If anyone wants to look it up, here are sites to compare the season's averages:

1996: Schedule for 1995-96

2012: Schedule for 2011-12

Who's your starting 5 if you combined the two teams?
Teague or Epps
Lamb or Delk
Jones or Walker
Davis or McCarty
MKG or Anderson
6th man Miller or Mercer

Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad

Who's your starting 5 if you combined the two teams?
Teague or Epps
Lamb or Delk
Jones or Walker
Davis or McCarty
MKG or Anderson
6th man Miller or Mercer

I was thinking Pope was a starter. Anderson was good but he did not explode until the following season.

I think you are right...Pope did start and Anderson came off of the bench behind Delk.

1996 easy.

A lot of you are basing it off of pro potential and where the current guys will be drafted.

Originally Posted by bugatti

I was thinking Pope was a starter. Anderson was good but he did not explode until the following season.

Pope did not start except vs. Maryland in the opener (if then). The PG was in flux. Delk first two games, Epps, then Turner for a while and finally Epps about the last 15 or so.

Anderson started the vast majority of games at the 3G or SF position. And while he averaged nearly 10 points, his defense, passing and speed was an explosion right from the start.

BTW, in the National Title game it was Anderson that was 4-8, 2-3 from 3 pt range (clutch one late), and was tied for 3rd leading scorer for UK. He also had 3 steals and 4 boards.

For those too young, or those who have forgotten: Beatdown Special - Kentucky vs. LSU (1996) - YouTube

Originally Posted by bugatti

I was thinking Pope was a starter. Anderson was good but he did not explode until the following season.

Pope started some, but Anderson started most of the time.

Originally Posted by Randy Parker

Pope started some, but Anderson started most of the time.

According to the stats in the link I posted above, Pope started like the first three games. After that, he came off the bench.

Originally Posted by Lucky Charms

I think what a lot of people are not accounting for is '12 ablity to defend the three ball. '96 would have had a really hard time getting in a rythem against '12. On the defensive side is where the game has evolved from then until now. Championship teams do not give up points (IU vs. UK 2012x2 is the exception).

No that has gotten taken into account. That is why the style of play for the 96 team is why some people might pick the 96 team. Look at the teams UK did lose to this year, Indiana and Vandy. Teams who could spread UK out and could shoot the ball, yet those teams were no where near as talented as the 96 team. Look at UL their style is almost exactly the same as the 96 team, yet they were not as talented and definitely did not shoot as well as the 96 team. The style the 96 team played, was the style that game the 2012 team the most trouble this year, but none of those teams had as much talent as the 96 team. It would be a great game, and really hard to pick one team over another because they probably would split more games than not.

Originally Posted by Hatz

According to the stats in the link I posted above, Pope started like the first three games. After that, he came off the bench.

That's probably right.

1996

In a great game

Originally Posted by hoopboy

I'm going with the 96 team due to depth and there ability to shoot the three. That was one of, if not the, best college team I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I concur