You guys don't think that this team can be as good as the 1995-96 team?

 

I personally do not.

 

This team might have better athleticism with all the height but I think the 95-96 team had more basketball talent and just guys that could fill it up. This team gets their points in different ways. It would be fun to watch the two play with their different styles.

Good points. It is harder to judge with so much "unproven" talent but everyone else has it too. I think the POTENTIAL is there for them to be a dominant team just because of their depth.

I think the POTENTIAL is there for them to be a dominant team just because of their depth.

 

Agreed. And I would add size to that as well.

 

Perimeter shooting is my primary concern.

The '95-'96 statistic I would most like to match is NCAA Championships - - with the line set at 0.5.

 

I'll take the under.

I think this years' team could be more statistically impressive than the 1995-1996 team. With that said' date=' how about these over/under totals for this years' team (not Vegas lines): 1. 91.6 points per game (95-96 teams' average) 2. +22.2 point per game differential (95-96 teams' average) 3. 9 100-point games (95-96 teams' total) 4. 129 points in a game (95-96 teams' high) 5. 38.5 wins (95-96 team had 2 losses in 36 games) 6. 54.1% FG (77-78 team...school record?) 7. +7 reb margin (11-12 team was less than +7) 8. 344 blocks (11-12 team...NCAA record?)[/quote']The only one I would guess is the rebound margin. Any idea what the '98 rebound margin was? I know they were among the nation's best that season.

 

The 91.6 average and 9 plus 100 point games are stupid in how great those are.

I think they break the FG% record.

Teams don't score the way they did 20 years ago, so I think all the scoring ones would be under.

 

And teams don't shoot the rock the way they did 35+ years ago either. I don't see them touching the '78 FG%. Just the fact kids shoot from the three so much and hit 35% means they won't come close as a team to 54%.

You guys don't think that this team can be as good as the 1995-96 team?

 

"Can be?" Certainly. Because there hasn't been a game played yet.

 

Will be?" Have to wait and see. The '96 team only played about 5 games in the single digits. The whole season. It was unreal to watch how they not only won but "destroyed" squads. They beat Stephon Marbury and G Tech by 20 or so. Beat Final Four Miss State by almost 20 at Starkville. If this UK team does anything similar vs this schedule, then they are in the pantheon of all time teams. But they have to win the title and perform at that kind of level to be considered.

And teams don't shoot the rock the way they did 35+ years ago either. I don't see them touching the '78 FG%. Just the fact kids shoot from the three so much and hit 35% means they won't come close as a team to 54%.

 

Agreed; as I said above, 6 is WAY under. :thumb:

The '96 team only played about 5 games in the single digits.

 

They won 34 games & just 4 of those wins were single-digit wins:

 

Beat Indiana by 7

Beat Georgia by 5

Beat Massachusetts by 7 (Final Four)

Beat Syracuse by 9 (Final Four)

 

26 regular season victories & only 2 of them had a single-digit margin of victory.

 

That team was absurd & the best I have seen at the college level in my lifetime.

Took a step towards numbers: 2, 5, 7, & 8 last night.

Took a step towards numbers: 2, 5, 7, & 8 last night.

 

Yeah, I though the blocks record was safe but they could get it. They could set records for rebounding margin and offensive boards.

Looks like they can challenge the record for FG% defense. Per NCAA Website the record (Since 78) is 35.2%. They are currently leading the nation, holding opponents to 27.9%

 

They are also on pace to break the Post 1965 mark for Opponents PPG which was 47.1, though I doubt they can keep up their current pace of 44.6.

Looks like they can challenge the record for FG% defense. Per NCAA Website the record (Since 78) is 35.2%. They are currently leading the nation, holding opponents to 27.9%

 

They are also on pace to break the Post 1965 mark for Opponents PPG which was 47.1, though I doubt they can keep up their current pace of 44.6.

 

WOW!

Grand Canyon, Buffalo, Boston, Montana State, UT-Arlington, EKU, Columbia....which one is holding them under 100? That's 7 right there. Just something to think about. These games will skew the averages quite a bit. Another 5-6 games will be huge blow outs and potential for 100+.

 

So far...all of them.

 

They still have Eastern and Columbia. Teams just don't put up 100 points regularly anymore. No matter how good they are.

So far...all of them.

 

They still have Eastern and Columbia. Teams just don't put up 100 points regularly anymore. No matter how good they are.

 

Yeah, definitely fooled by the pace of the pre-season games. I thought Cal would press and run a little more with the depth. The offensive rebounding was the other factor I thought this would be possible--that part has been true.

 

Let's be honest, they could have. I read a book a long time ago and it asked (in regards to what type of coach a person was): if you knew you were going to beat an opponent by 30 points, would you rather win 100-70 or 70-40?

 

Cal would rather win 70-40. He's always had great defensive stats as a coach. Pitino would rather win 100-70--well, he used to, not so sure now.