I'd go in this order:

 

2010 vs. 2015:

 

2015 - the depth wears on the '10 team & '15 is more complete... '15 has tons of bodies to throw at Cousins and could get him in foul trouble, Ulis making Bledsoe pay when he gambles, a solid defensive scheme that could work by having WCS waiting on Wall's drives. '10 would have to have a huge game from Wall and he'd have to find his way into the lane and be able to count on the guys he was dishing out to convert, so it's not impossible, but I like '15's depth and flexibility.

 

 

2010 vs. 2012:

 

2010 - too much talent and not a good match-up for the '12 team... (see post above)

 

 

2015 vs. 2012:

 

2015/2012 - closest one to call and a much better matchup for the '12 team, those two are the most similar groups in this. I could see it going either way. In the end, 2015 has more talent and a deeper roster, but 2012 has some things going for them too (i.e., Jones is a mismatch, MKG getting boards and running out past Lyles and the Harrisons, Davis cleaning the glass and protecting the rim)... could probably play this one a few times and would get a different result each time.

Time always changes perspective.

 

Who really cares if 15 team is better than 12 team, the fact of the matter is this. If the 2015 team doesn't win the title then they will never be in the same conversation as best team...yet, even if they should be. In about 5 years though many who don't think of this years team as one of the best ever will start to think that maybe they were. Once time passes people will then realize how good THS team actually was. This team went undefeated through the regular season, they swept the Sec tourney and stayed undefeated all the way to the final 4. They set an alltime record for the most wins without a loss in a single season. Some may right now think 2012 team was better right now, but trust me that in 5 years this team will be thought in the same caliber once people realize how many of this years team will at that time be playing in the NBA and won't be thought of as just college players.

 

Time is the difference maker.

Time always changes perspective.

 

Who really cares if 15 team is better than 12 team, the fact of the matter is this. If the 2015 team doesn't win the title then they will never be in the same conversation as best team...yet, even if they should be. In about 5 years though many who don't think of this years team as one of the best ever will start to think that maybe they were. Once time passes people will then realize how good THIS team actually was. This team went undefeated through the regular season, they swept the Sec tourney and stayed undefeated all the way to the final 4. They set an alltime record for the most wins without a loss in a single season. Some may right now think 2012 team was better right now, but trust me that in 5 years this team will be thought in the same caliber once people realize how many of this years team will at that time be playing in the NBA and won't be thought of as just college players.

 

Time is the difference maker.

 

Agree 100%. Posted the other thread on this exact topic and refreshed my page and see this.

I'm of the opinion that the 2012 is one of the better teams we've seen in a while in college basketball. The reason for that? Anthony Davis. Again, my opinion, I think if you throw him on any number of those top college programs in 2012 they would have been national champions. It kills me to compliment any UK player but I really believe he was that good.

I think this team from top to bottom is the best team ever for UK. I only say that because of the depth. This team doesn't have the best players per say. It doesn't have a Anthony Davis or a MKG or a John Wall or a Cousins but what it does have is 10 players that if split into 2 teams would be 2 top ten and possibly both being top 5 teams in the country. There hasn't been another team, not only in UK history but any college teams history including the UCLA dynasties that could do that.

Tubby had a few of those, banners fly forever. You have distinguish the elite accomplishments.

 

JA-- You didn't just hate on Tubby, did you? Man, I thought we were friends. I loved what Tubby did, think he should be in the Rafters already, and respect that he came in and won a spotless title, and did it when there was nowhere to go but down. It isn't easy to follow a legend and he kept Pitino's team where they were and brought it home.

 

Tubby as a person: I think it's awesome that while Tubby Smith wasn't living in the Lexington area, he still kept up some of his charities even when he didn't really have to. Dude was a class act (if you search the BGP engine, you can probably find the young Joker getting an autograph from Tubby and him being so cool about it that he asked my name so he could personalize it, then turned to a page with the players actually in it to sign it), but I'm not re-typing that one.

 

Honestly, I think Tubby's legacy took a bad break when Bogans sprained his ankle against Wisconsin and the Cats went on to get beaten by Wade and Marquette. The 2003 team was pretty dirty, as was the UAB-upset 2004 team, and I think Marquette's performance in the next round (which is of Calcutta legend), is an indication of that.

I think it was pretty safe to say that everyone knew Boogie and Wall were both going to be big time NBA talents from the moment they stepped on campus. Same goes for how people felt about Patterson having some years in the NBA (though his range did begin to expand).

 

People were also big on Bledsoe, and even though he was raw, he was a talented player that, while people might not have thought he'd be one-and-done, was still probably considered more of an early entrant after year 2 or 3 than anything else. I looked it up and both ESPN and Rivals rated him as a 5*. ESPN graded him at a 90, and #12 PG... most anyone with a 9-anything are solid. Rivals listed him as the #3 PG and #23 player overall. While his development might have been a surprise, a large part of that was also that he was asked to play off the ball with Wall, so there was a bit of uncertainty as to how that'd work.

 

If we're going back in time, Orton looked way better then than he probably does now. Dodson was also a guy who was capable of hitting some shots, and when he did, it was on.

 

 

I see no way that the '12 guards keep Wall and Bledsoe in front of them, and Terrence Jones would have his hands full inside with Patterson.

 

Above all, if we're going to talk about guys who "well, obviously they're standing out to you... you see what they do in the NBA now", then Davis is probably Exhibit A for improvement.

 

Lots of people in this debate are always saying, 2012 would just pack it in and 2010 couldn't score, but it's rarely mentioned that 2010 could have some trouble getting into the offense with Wall and Bledsoe hounding Teague and Lamb. I think there's a valid question as to how 2012 does it offensively against 2010. Saying you want to run against the '10 guards means you are trusting Teague & Lamb to handle Wall & Bledsoe end to end. Not a good idea. So then the question becomes how they score in the half-court. Who does it for 2012? I think Jones gets his and Davis gets some (but he was fairly up and down), and past that, I'm not sure any one dude on '12 is able to carry that kind of burden. None of that is even getting into Cousins, who was a thousand times more physically mature than Davis, possibly getting him in foul trouble and/or just bulling him around the goal.

 

I really think you have let how players ended up being in the NBA cloud your judgement on how they were at UK. Which if we are talking about the UK teams, then you have to think about them in terms of how they were when at UK and not what they become.

 

You talk about Wall and Bledsoe as they were elite on the ball defenders that the 2012 guards would have trouble with. However Wall and Bledsoe were not great on the ball defenders. If they were so good every team would have had trouble setting up an offense against them, and if that was the case then that team would have been much better defensively. Instead that team allowed 65 points per game which was 81st in the country. So I think its safe to say that the 2012 guards would have been just as fine setting up an offense against that 2010 team just like every other team who played that 2010 team was. That 2010 team was a good defense but as you see by the stats was not a great defense and was not a defense teams had that hard of a time scoring on and couldn't set up their offense against because Wall and Bledsoe were not great on ball defenders as you made it sound or else that defense would have been much better if they were that great. Not to mention even if the 2010 team tried to press to make the guards take it up full court against them it wouldn't matter, because you forget teams couldn't press the 2012 team because they had 5 guys including Davis who could take the ball up the court.

 

I really have no idea why you keep talking of Dodson so highly. As I pointed out Miller was the one who started on that team, not him. Dodson only averaged 15 minutes a game and was only a 35% 3 point shooter. The 2010 team ranked 227th in the country in three point percentage, yes 227th in the country out of 334 teams. The 2010 team ranked 243rd in free throw percentage. Now the 2010 team obviously was ranked high with assists when you have a John Wall and Bledsoe and was a very good rebounding team. To put it into perspective on how important shooting the ball is in college because of how teams pack the lanes. The 2011 team ranked 9th in the country in 3 point percentage and 54th in defense. Which was still not as good as the 2012 and 2015 team but still was better than the 2010 team in defense, and the 2011 team shot the ball better. In the college game defense and shooting the ball is huge.

 

As I mentioned before the 2010 team definitely ended up having more star type players who ended up being very good and even great NBA players. However you can't let that cloud your judgement on how the team was in college, since we are comparing them when they were at UK. The 2012 and 2015 teams both were ranked high in the same areas that the 2010 team was in stats, but were also much better shooting the ball and with free throws, and both teams ranked as two of the best defensive teams in the country. The 2010 was fun to watch because of all the talent. However in college you need to have talent, but you also have to be able to play as a team, shoot the ball, play defense and be able to make free throws. That 2010 team was not a good shooting team, was not as good of a defensive team, and definitely was a horrible free throw shooting team. Those flaws are huge flaws to have, and why they fell short and why the 2012 and 2015 teams are considered better when looking at it in terms of how they were in college.