Toggle sidebar

1994-1999 Vs 2010-2015. As a fan, which is better?

K

KingOfBBN

Heisman
Sep 14, 2013
39,077
38,403
0
I know we are starting after a Final Four in 1993 but the numbers wouldn't work with Cal's five years.

In that time period, we had Tubby and Pitino where we won almost every conference tournament.

94- 2nd rd
95- Elite 8
96- National Champions
97- National Runner-up
98- National Champions
99- Elite 8




2010- Elite 8, SEC champs
2011- Final Four, SEC tourney Champs
2012- National Champs, SEC champs
2013- NIT
2014- National Runner-up
2015- TBD, 31-0 regular season

If we win it all this year, we will have won two titles and made four of the last five final fours.
 
X

Xception

Heisman
Apr 17, 2007
26,407
22,344
0
Both were great and there is no wrong choice , give me 10-15 because I'm enjoying it more for whatever reason .
 
K

KopiKat

All-Conference
Nov 2, 2006
14,018
4,757
0
Can't choose against the era that resulted in twice as many national titles. But if we win this year . . .
 
L

Lob2Davis

Sophomore
Mar 31, 2014
792
170
0
Love em both but I've got to go with 94-98. I don't have a problem with the way Kentucky works in the one and done(or the occasional two and toodle-loo) world but as a fan it was a lot more satisfying getting to know players over a four year period. Those days are gone though and I think the current state of the program is fantastic too.
 
P

point1zerorock

All-Conference
Jun 18, 2010
2,187
1,012
0
Was a student at UK '96-2000, so that's tough to beat, but I feel like I'm enjoying this as much or more. So fun to see my young kids getting so into it and becoming big UK fans.
 
W

wkucat88

Senior
Jan 13, 2010
596
489
38
As a fan, I'll take '93-'99 ... for now. Remember, we were 18 years between championships, and had endured Sutton and being ***** slapped (and for good reason) by the NCAA. Tubby's last few years, and BCG were merely annoyances. I do believe that Cal's system will be sustaining though, and it will eclipse that time as far as year in, year out fan excitement. I think Cal will exceed the 10 years of dominance from '48 to '58 that Rupp accomplished, if he stays 10 years.
 
K

KingOfBBN

Heisman
Sep 14, 2013
39,077
38,403
0
Originally posted by ganner918:
What possible logic did you use excluding the 93 final four, putting the 99 elite 8 in instead?
Click to expand...
Because it isn't much of a debate if you do that. 94 was the hick-up of a wasted season. After that we went to the elite 8 every single year. So it is a more balanced argument.
 
S

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
16,261
6,847
113
Watching that Arkansas Kentucky 95 replay last night brought back a lot of memories. Those games were so much fun to watch. Even if it was Clemson and wake forest on those jerseys I would have enjoyed watching those games. Everyone hauling as up and down the court. Constant moving. Gotta pick 90's just for the style of play back then.
 
MegaBlue05

MegaBlue05

Heisman
Mar 8, 2014
10,308
19,641
66
TBD

IF we win it all this year, then give me 2010-15. The 90s run was awesome too.
 
M

mjj_2K

All-American
Jul 11, 2010
12,439
7,007
0
Originally posted by SaguaroCat:
Watching that Arkansas Kentucky 95 replay last night brought back a lot of memories. Those games were so much fun to watch. Even if it was Clemson and wake forest on those jerseys I would have enjoyed watching those games. Everyone hauling as up and down the court. Constant moving. Gotta pick 90's just for the style of play back then.
Click to expand...
I agree. And you have to remember that when Pitino came to UK, UK was coming off a decade plus in which the style of play could best be described as "stodgily conservative". Joe B actually started as a Rupp protege, meaning someone who believed in uptempo basketball, but he got further and further away from that as he went along. Then you had Sutton, a Hank Iba disciple. It was often boring, even when it won.

Pitino came in, and suddenly UK played with pure aggression, on both ends of the court. It was fun from the very first game, and it only got better as Pitino got better players. UK went out there to just stomp on people, and usually did.

The transformation of Pitino's style from what it was at UK to what it is at UL is emblematic of what's happened to college basketball in general. Pitino's UK teams played plenty of physical D, just like UL, but they also ran the floor like maniacs and played with constant motion, of the ball and the players, on offense. Pitino's UL teams rarely run the floor and run a slow, stagnant offense (even his title team).

Cal has had more success against the big boys in the NCAA Tournament than Pitino did, and if UK wins it all this year, there's no doubt that he will have surpassed what Pitino accomplished. The 90's run was just more fun to watch, because college basketball was more fun to watch in general, and UK specifically may have been the most entertaining team of them all.
 
B

bthaunert

Heisman
Apr 4, 2007
29,518
21,619
0
Originally posted by Lob2Davis:

Love em both but I've got to go with 94-98. I don't have a problem with the way Kentucky works in the one and done(or the occasional two and toodle-loo) world but as a fan it was a lot more satisfying getting to know players over a four year period. Those days are gone though and I think the current state of the program is fantastic too.
Click to expand...
This

The state of college basketball was so much better back then.
 
S

STEVEGRO50

Redshirt
Feb 21, 2007
4,159
5
0
I say 94-99....We were dead before CRP came here. No talent, no post season. I just think it was very cool coming back from the depths of probation so quickly.
 
K

KWilt43atbuzz

All-American
Nov 18, 2012
17,050
6,848
0
You need to change your header to 1993-98. UK went to 4 FF in 6 years and three straight title games and won two championships from 1993-1998. From 2010-2015 UK has thus far went to 3 FF, 2 title games and won 1 title. The only way this current run trumps 93-98 is if UK goes 40-0 this season. PERIOD!

This post was edited on 3/10 10:21 AM by KWilt43atbuzz
 
M

Mojocat_rivals48469

Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
I'll say now. See the other thread about weeks at Number 1. 6 weeks in the '94-'99 time period, and 31 weeks under Cal. Hard to argue you are on top when you're ranked at the top only 6 weeks in 6 years. Right now, we are the epicenter of college basketball. If you don't believe me, turn on ESPN any hour, day or night.....
 
S

SLONER67

Redshirt
Dec 18, 2014
428
3
0
Originally posted by ednunn:
Hell why choose, just enjoy it all.
Click to expand...
^^^^THIS!!! That's the joy of being a UK fan...we have the best of all scenarios.

This is why we are THE (not one of the) top program in Division I men's basketball. UCLA has more titles yeah so...when was their last one? What is their overall wins? Are they even in the top 5? Indiana '76 Hoosiers are the last team to go undefeated and win the title. Yeah? Not for long (we hope)...and when we hang #9, it will be 40-0 compared to 32-0! And why stop at 40-0...let's see how far we can stretch next year (assuming we get it done this year).

Our program is the standard of which all other programs are measured. That isn't about to be true...it already is true! We are Kentucky! Go Big Blue!

Man that felt good!
 
U

UK90

Heisman
Dec 30, 2007
31,460
27,814
0
Out of curiosity, OP, why did you choose 94-99 as your period for the 90s run?

If you wanted to pick the best six year stretch from that era, then you should've chosen 93-98. The 93 team was a juggernaut, only lost three regular season games in what might've been the sports strongest ever season, were a No. 1 seed and reached the final four (where they barely lost in OT to the Fab 5). I'd say that 93 team earned the right to be part of this conversation.

And, as for my answer, I think 93-98 still trumps our current run. Now if we complete this undefeated season with a title next month I'll probably change my mind on that, but as for now, I'm going with 93-98.
 
C

Chuckinden

All-American
Jun 12, 2006
18,984
5,894
113
The 94-99 era was magical. Loved seeing guys like Shep get better each year. To this ole timer, it's not nearly as amazing now as it was then.

Like someone already mentioned, college basketball is not the same now as it was then.
 
KyCat

KyCat

All-American
Sep 29, 2006
5,676
9,407
113
Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
I know we are starting after a Final Four in 1993 but the numbers wouldn't work with Cal's five years.

In that time period, we had Tubby and Pitino where we won almost every conference tournament.

94- 2nd rd
95- Elite 8
96- National Champions
97- National Runner-up
98- National Champions
99- Elite 8

2010- Elite 8, SEC champs
2011- Final Four, SEC tourney Champs
2012- National Champs, SEC champs
2013- NIT
2014- National Runner-up
2015- TBD, 31-0 regular season

If we win it all this year, we will have won two titles and made four of the last five final fours.
Click to expand...
Still curious why you chose 94-99 instead of 93-98. 93 was another Final Four while 99 was an Elite 8. Referring to 94 as a hiccup year is no differnt than 2013 being a hiccup year. Also whether it is much of a debate or not as you indicated in a later response does not make much sense to me. Selecting the years to make it more of a debate is akin to UofL pounding their chest for having the best record over the last 4 years.... cherry picking.
This post was edited on 3/10 1:23 PM by TheThack
 
B

Bank Cat

All-American
Dec 8, 2011
3,692
5,585
113
I probably enjoyed 94-98 more just because I was in my 20's and single and had just graduated from UK in 1992. For the first time, I wasn't taking winning (at least initially) for granted. It sucked so bad to be at UK when the hammer came down. I didn't know if we'd ever be relevant again, and I sure as hell didn't think we'd end up as the team of the '90's. (suck it Duke)

But I'm digging the current period too! Hard to compare.
 
G

Graves51

Junior
Feb 27, 2014
4,360
277
0
94-99 or 93-99 without a doubt. Back in those days we won with players we came to know over a few years. Plus we were not getting the best recruits year after year, so we weren't expected to be overwhelming favorites like we are now!
 
C

CatDaddy4daWin

All-Conference
Dec 11, 2013
6,147
1,580
0
If Cal wins it all this year I gotta go with his run for a couple of reasons:
We are dominating college basketball right now.The players on his teams will light up NBA arenas for years to come, meaning more and more recruits will comeCal is much more likable than Pitino ever was.
 
M

ManitouDan

Heisman
Dec 7, 2006
20,074
32,442
0
I enjoyed the 90's run much more . For various reasons . Players were 4 year guys . Some of the best players were Ky born and bred . We played that fast paste thingy . Mashburn was totally unstoppable . We were not picked to succeed like we did . And it seemed like it had been FOOOOREVER since we had been good . The SI shame cover , followed by a never say lose type teams . Undefeated at home the year we went something like 16-15 . The LSU comeback . The relaxing feeling being tied or down 2-3 at the half knowing that Pitino would adjust and we would wax teams in the second half . And the overall level of ball seemed higher . Arkansas coming into the league with huge swag . It was off the charts fun.
Having said that its a blast now too , I love being hated !
 
M

Mojocat_rivals48469

Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
Originally posted by MdWIldcat55:
The actual comparison should be 1992-1997 and 2010-2015.

That is the six quality years of Rick Pitino (once he had righted the ship in 90 and 91) and the first six years of John Calipari, starting fast after an NIT year.

1992 Elite Eight -- Elite Eight 2010
1993 Final Four -- Final Four 2011
1994 Second rd -- Nat Champ 2012
1995 Elite Eight -- NIT 2013
1996 Nat Champ -- Runner Up 2014
1997 Runner Up -- ??? 2015

Each of those runs includes 1 NC, 1 Runner-up, 1 Final Four and 1 Elite Eight, along with one year out of the money. Pitino's includes a second Elite Eight. Cal's sixth year is yet to be determined.

Anything beyond an Elite Eight this year, and I think you have to say Cal's first six years have been more satisfying.
Click to expand...
Well, that is fairly plain spoken, and convincing.....
 
B

brianpoe

Heisman
Mar 25, 2009
27,769
21,825
113
Most fans who were at least in their 20's during the 90's run will pick that decade and it isn't even close.

People have made great points about better product, better competition, time between titles, , etc.

The main point to me is; after being decimated by probation we began climbing that hill back to success. We suffered through things like the Kansas massacre and 6'7 centers. It was amazing the feeling amongst the entire program and the fans that we were fighting back into our rightful spot, we took heavy blows like Laettner and Michigan, but you could feel it coming, and when it did, it came in a big big way.

This time is great for Cats fans and I'm not saying either team is better than the other, but the emotional feeling back then was way more powerful and was much more deserving. We began at 14-14 (no instant program changers like Wall or Cousins) to the Unforgettables to the Untouchables to the Comeback Cats, it was a journey and it was fun.
 
T

TTOWN CATS

Redshirt
Nov 20, 2014
184
1
0
I'll reserve judgment until this season is over, but we were one point away in '97 from Three-Peating, and that was with Nazr Mohammed going 0-6 on free throws and Derek Anderson (knee), Allen Edwards (foot), and Jeff Shepherd (Redshirt) sitting on the bench. It seemed like each of those seasons (except '96) we also exceeded expectations for the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom