August 22, 200719 yr I guess I didnt realize that the only thing that mattered in basketball was offense. Oops. :walk:
August 22, 200719 yr I dont think pld realizes that you have the most ridiculous memory for UK basketball and thinks that you will just take what he says as the truth. Isn't there some kind of rule against posting false info? The thing is, especially then, when I wasnt as busy I watched every game closely and I am somewhat a historian when it comes to Kentucky basketball. So when he makes ridiculous false statements I and most others are going to see it for what it is.
August 22, 200719 yr 1. UK 1996 2. Indiana's undefeated team 3. One of the UNLV teams 4. The last UNC team to win it all 5. 1978 UK Duke didn't even make my top five.
August 23, 200719 yr Duke, any Duke championship team, and that's final. Well there you have it. I guess its final.
August 23, 200719 yr 1. UK 1996 2. Indiana's undefeated team 3. One of the UNLV teams 4. The last UNC team to win it all 5. 1978 UK Duke didn't even make my top five. :thumb: :thumb: I can't argue with those, maybe go way back and take Rupp's "Fabulous Five" in place of the UNC team. Any team that the starting five were the U.S. olympic team's starters (I think that is correct) deserves to be on the list as well as one of John Wooden's classic UCLA teams over that UNC team. At any rate, imo all mentioned were better than any Duke team and Duke no doubt had some good teams.
August 23, 200719 yr I thought that UNC team was loaded, heck if choking Roy could win a NC with them they had to be good. Didn't 6 of them go in the first round?
August 23, 200719 yr Duke, any Duke championship team, and that's final. :laugh: Well, then that's only 3 teams so that won't round out a top five let alone top ten. Actually I have no problems with the '92 Duke team being considered. I've always thought they were very talented and did wonders if you consider the bullseye that was on them all year. (Not unlike the '96 UK team) The only knock you have to have is the same knock you've had on UK's team. Of the NBA careers on the '92 Duke squad on Grant Hill's was outstanding but injury prone. Laettner was a journeyman and Parks, Hurley and Thomas Hill never made any real dents anywhere in the NBA. Duke '91 was a team that peaked at the right time and the '01 team benefited greatly in their semi-final game vs Maryland by the Terps own meltdown and the striped Dukies. I don't hold either of them in the same regard as the '92 squad.
August 23, 200719 yr Duke, any Duke championship team, and that's final. I think even RockPride would tell you that's wrong. And I think it's sad if you really believe that. Especially the '01 team.
August 24, 200719 yr I think even RockPride would tell you that's wrong. And I think it's sad if you really believe that. Especially the '01 team. Likewise about UK. UK fans are O so sensative!
August 24, 200719 yr Likewise about UK. UK fans are O so sensative! maybe not sensitive but sensible when it comes to ranking the top teams of all time. UK 96 was one of the greatest.
August 26, 200719 yr Likewise about UK. UK fans are O so sensative! I've already told you I thought '91 UNLV was the top team. I didn't just say, "Hey, pick any of the 7 championship UK teams. And that's final."
August 26, 200719 yr Likewise about UK. UK fans are O so sensative! So basically we prove your views of the 96 team wrong and your false statements and now you want to come back and say UK fans are too sensitive and make a generalization about all UK fans. I hafta hand it to you, you don't give in. :lol:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.