As covered in Part I (https://bluegrasspreps.com/forums/topic/255524-fiftieth-anniversary-of-kentucky-hs-basketballs-peak-season-part-I/), the Louisville Male Bulldogs entered the 1975-76 basketball season as the consensus number one team in the state, and by the lights of one national magazine, the number one team in the country. It was therefore a shock when high school basketball fans turned to the Courier-Journal’s sports page on December 8, 1975, and saw another team atop the paper’s Litkenhous computer ratings. Male had played only one game prior to the ratings, beating one of the state’s other top ranked teams, Louisville Shawnee, by the score of 75-69. But the Litratings calculated Male as the state’s eighth best team—and that rating didn’t account for teams that had not yet played another in-state opponent.

 

The strength of Kentucky high school basketball in 1975-76 was such that not even a team as strong as Male could take the number one rating for granted. Nevertheless, when Lexington Henry Clay’s coach, Al Prewitt, was informed of his team’s top ranking he said, “I’m certainly surprised, and I guess real happy. It’s certainly an honor, even if it is this early, to know that of all the teams in the state, yours is rated No. 1.” He added that, despite his gratification, he thought Male should be rated at the top.

 

By the end of February, Lexington Tates Creek coach Nolan Barger said he thought only five teams had what it took to win the state title: “The state champion will come from either Male, Ballard, Shawnee, Henry Clay, or Shelby County. I don’t think anybody else has enough talent to win it.” Why he left Lexington Bryan Station off the list is somewhat puzzling inasmuch as they had beaten Henry Clay in both of the games they played against each other preceding Barger’s assessment. Even if he had included them, his list would have been too short. But it makes sense to start the catalog of top teams with his most obvious omission:

 

Lexington Bryan Station Defenders: A lot of coaches I have interviewed have said they believe that strong guard play is the key to winning tournament games, and in 1976 the conventional wisdom held that Bryan Station’s backcourt of first-team all stater Anthony Jackson and honorable mention Bruce Coles was the top tandem in the commonwealth. Bryan Station beat Henry Clay again in the 43d District final before facing off against the Blue Devils again in the 11th Region final.

 

Shelby County Rockets: In the first year of the newly merged school (with Shelbyville), Tom Creamer melded two successful 1975 squads into one cohesive team featuring first team all-stater Vince Chambers and his brother Dean. Shelby County won 30 games while playing a schedule consisting largely of nearby Louisville teams.

 

Louisville Shawnee Indians: Shawnee was only three years removed from a state championship in 1976. The Indians played Male in the first game of the 1975-76 season, and Ballard in the second  game, losing both. Their masochistic scheduler pitted Shawnee against top-ten Louisville Central in the third game. Only by coming from behind by nine points in the fourth quarter against Central, only going ahead with 11 seconds left in the game, was Shawnee able to avoid an 0-3 start to the season. But behind Rudy Macklin (about whom there is much more to come in Part III), and guards Howard Duncan and Darrell Payne, Shawnee ended the regular season with only three losses, one to Male and one to Ballard to open the season, and a second loss to Ballard in the Louisville Invitational Tournament.

 

Louisville Central Yellowjackets: Barger probably should have included Central on his list too. Bath County coach Julian Cunningham, only two weeks prior to Barger’s comments, had listed Central in his top four, along with Ballard, Male, and Henry Clay. Central, the 1969 and 1974 state champs were not as good as they had been in their championship seasons, but with a third-team all stater in Duncan Hill, and two honorable mention players in Keith Parker and Bruce Little, Central was another team with only a few close losses, all to other top teams. The Yellowjackets followed the close regular season loss to Shawnee with a district tournament win over the Indians.

 

Ballard Bruins: Ballard’s first season of varsity basketball was 1970-71. Between 1972-73 and 1974-75, playing in what was arguably the best region in the state, Ballard won 86 games and lost 9. The roster was stacked with future Division I players, whom we will get to in Part III. It’s enough to say for now that when Mark Snider, the region tournament star and an honorable mention all-state player, is only the fourth best player on the team, you are looking at a pretty strong line-up.

 

Lexington Henry Clay: The Blue Devils frontcourt returned intact from the 1975 squad. They were experienced, tall and, said Prewitt, “they’re leapers too.” All state guard Kenny Elliott was gone from the 1975 state finalists, but Prewitt’s concern lay not so much with the lost performance Elliott took with him as with the leadership void his departure created. Still, Henry Clay had the kind of talent from the top of its roster on down that would have made it the consensus number one in the state in most seasons. In fact, Prewitt considered depth to be his ace in the hole. In a January 12, 1976 with the Courier-Journal’s Bob White, Prewitt said, “I believe the caliber of basketball throughout the state is better than in the last few years.” He considered Male to have the top starting five, but added, “There’s no doubt Griffith and Turner are super players, but there are times when the might get in foul trouble or injuries might pop up.” Prewitt confided to White, “The ingredients you need to win the State Tournament are a team with size and a team with good reserves.” He didn’t say it outright, but there is little doubt that he would describe his own teams in those terms.

 

Male: See Part I

 

Four Louisville teams, two Lexington teams, and one state team that hovered on the outskirts of Louisville—all stacked with a combination of talent and coaching, would have been listed as one of the favorites to win the state championship in any season before or since. A lot of that has to do with the number of individual players from those select squads who went on to play and thrive on high-level Division I NCAA teams, and in the NBA. In Part III, coming before Christmas, I’ll highlight the state’s individual talent. And yet, despite the glitter of the super teams and superstars, the postseason tournament produced upsets at every step along the way. The quality of teams was not simply a result of the urban powers clustered at the top of the ratings. Teams down the rung were also, relative to other seasons, capable of performing at a very high level. Part IV will show how very wrong all of the smart observers were in their predictions of who was capable of winning the Sweet 16.

Awesome

Can’t wait!