Where do they rank?

[Randy Parker]

I get that but if we are truly coming up with a list of best teams of all time, we can't include the year before just because they were the same players. That is certainly not fair to the likes of 2012 Kentucky :lol:

 

You raise a good point because we only have one year to work with in regards to this team, but the same is also true of the 1996 squad when you think about it. 1995 UK didn't have Derek Anderson & Ron Mercer, for example. That 1996 team was only fully together one season, which is the case for a lot of teams.

 

I just include the other teams because winning two years in a row, in this day and age, is quite an accomplishment. The fact that it has only happened twice in my lifetime says something about those two teams that were able to accomplish it. In the case of both Duke & Florida, I think they were both at their peak during their title defending years. So even if I take the first year they won off, those two squads are still in my top five.

[PurplePride92]

I assume you are referring to me and I still stand by my statement (IF your list had stayed the same - I did not read the whole thread). I have seen lists like this put together for a long time by national outlets and never once has '91 Duke been on a list, much less ahead of '96 UK, who is usually in the Top 5. If it is so blatantly obvious that this is this case, then what other than you being a Duke fan would have you rank that team ahead of UK? You are a smart fella too.

 

 

You aren't alone. If I had a quarter for every person saying I have Duke bias I'd be theGuru's boss. :lol:

 

And where did I rank them ahead of 96? I could have sworn my revised list after discussion had 96 UK and 92 Duke tied after UNLV and I don't recall ever saying 91 was better than 96.

 

 

And after going through the thread again, I repeat, I never said 91 Duke was better than 96 UK. I didn't even say 92 Duke was better than 96 UK. I am being unfairly profiled.

[Original Rookie]

You aren't alone. If I had a quarter for every person saying I have Duke bias I'd be theGuru's boss. :lol:

 

And where did I rank them ahead of 96? I could have sworn my revised list after discussion had 96 UK and 92 Duke tied after UNLV and I don't recall ever saying 91 was better than 96.

 

 

And after going through the thread again, I repeat, I never said 91 Duke was better than 96 UK. I didn't even say 92 Duke was better than 96 UK. I am being unfairly profiled.

 

I've been around enough to know that your opinion is almost always free of any Duke bias.

[PurplePride92]

I've been around enough to know that your opinion is almost always free of any Duke bias.

 

I try. I admit I'll throw them out there sometimes but when backed down with good and credible evidence I'll cave. I take what little credibility I have seriously.