You can't even compare them to the 98 and 96 teams until they cut the nets down! I'm no UK cheerleader, this team is good, really good. But you can't compare them to title teams until they win a title.

 

:thumb:

 

Off to a great start, but like I am sure Calipari would say, they haven't won anything yet. If they get to the final 4, then we can compare IMHO.

They are not near as good as the 96 team

Can you imagine if UK fans ran back and smacked the floor when they set up their defense? Now that would be obnoxious.

 

:lol:

1998 wasn't even close to 1996. People seem to think Pitino left Tubby with a #1 no doubt about it title team, but that wasn't the case at all. In fact, that team was ranked near 20 to begin the season.

 

Turner, Sheppard, Allen Edwards, Padgett, Nazr and Heshimu Evans were their top six. Magloire was a freshman I believe. Many would argue that the '97 team was more talented than the '98 team.

 

 

They started the season ranked #9.

 

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statistics/1997-98.html

They started the season ranked #9.

 

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statistics/1997-98.html

 

True. But they were not as good as the 1997 team or anywhere near the 1996 team talent wise. Even many of those who ranked them said it was based more on what the Cats had done the prior 2 seasons not truly on what talent was left on the team.

True. But they were not as good as the 1997 team or anywhere near the 1996 team talent wise. Even many of those who ranked them said it was based more on what the Cats had done the prior 2 seasons not truly on what talent was left on the team.

 

:thumb:

 

My bad on the #20, I had been told that before and never really checked.

1998 wasn't even close to 1996. People seem to think Pitino left Tubby with a #1 no doubt about it title team, but that wasn't the case at all. In fact, that team was ranked near 20 to begin the season.

 

Turner, Sheppard, Allen Edwards, Padgett, Nazr and Heshimu Evans were their top six. Magloire was a freshman I believe. Many would argue that the '97 team was more talented than the '98 team.

 

 

Magloire was a sophomore on that team, but hadn't really developed as an offensive threat. He was used primarily for defense that year.

True. But they were not as good as the 1997 team or anywhere near the 1996 team talent wise. Even many of those who ranked them said it was based more on what the Cats had done the prior 2 seasons not truly on what talent was left on the team.

 

:thumb: The 96 team can be put on a list of best college basketball teams ever. And the 97 team was better than the 98 team IMO.

I love watching Patterson, and he is a fantastic college player, but c'mon. With his height combined with his skill set, don't you think that's a bit much?

 

Frankly, of both teams, Wall is easily the most talented player, and the player best equipped to be an impact pro. Cousins has a better chance, because of his frame, than Patterson to be an impact pro. But top to bottom, the '96 roster wins this one by 10-12 points.

 

No, outside of A-Walker, I think Patterson will have a better career than any other member of the '96 team. I didn't really think any of the others were that successful in the NBA after they were drafted.

No, outside of A-Walker, I think Patterson will have a better career than any other member of the '96 team. I didn't really think any of the others were that successful in the NBA after they were drafted.

I guess it just depends on how you define "success". Mercer, Pope, Anderson, McCarty, and Delk all had really solid careers. Walker once made an all-star team. Nazr is still in the league and has been a solid backup (primarily) in his years.

1998 wasn't even close to 1996. People seem to think Pitino left Tubby with a #1 no doubt about it title team, but that wasn't the case at all. In fact, that team was ranked near 20 to begin the season.

 

Turner, Sheppard, Allen Edwards, Padgett, Nazr and Heshimu Evans were their top six. Magloire was a freshman I believe. Many would argue that the '97 team was more talented than the '98 team.

I agree. '97 was by far a better team than '98, IMO. The '97 team lost the title simply because Derek Anderson couldn't play due to his injury, and Arizona's Miles Simon played about a mile over his head in the title game.

The '98 team overchieved big time, got on a roll after the Duke game, and won it all. But they're probably not as talented as the present group of Wildcats, and certainly not '96 and '97.

The championship in '96 was that team's to lose. They were favored all the way, even though UMass was rated over them for much of the season. The '96 team is the best group of talent from top to bottom ever assembled for UK IMO. '78 is the second best all time.

I agree with those who think the 97 team was better than the 98 team. I really like the 98 team as people. Shep and Mills were strong in their faith and not bashful about showing it. The 98 team had nobody as talented as Mercer or Anderson and were very fortunate to beat Duke and Stanford. It took alot of good fortune for them to win.

At this point UK looks un-beatable to me.....I think at worst they go undefeated, to the Elite 8....it would be an upset of major, major proportions for them to lose before then....they are the top dog....

That would be.... at "best" they go undefeated......not at worst they go undefeated.

 

Undefeated would be the best they could go.

 

I detect this post is laced with sarcasm.

I think its fair to ask the question now. Just where does this UK team stack up with their last two National Title teams.

 

I think they are certainly better than the 98 team and I'm not so sure they aren't as good as the 96 team. Not as deep but every bit as talented.

 

More talented. This is the most talented team UK has had in my lifetime. But, they're not better than the '96 squad. Maybe they'll get there, but they aren't yet.

 

John Wall is the best PG in school history. And, DeMarcus Cousins may be the most physically gifted big they've had.

 

Just my two cents...