Ranking Every Kentucky Team Since 1948 (Revised)

[Blueism]

If anyone wants to know more about the assumptions I used to build the algorithm, I'll be happy to expand on that. My algorithm assumes a reasonably healthy roster, so Derek Anderson is active in 1997, for example. There are also era penalties --- I wanted to respect the past, while acknowledging the differences in competition, training, skill, etc. for a team in, say the 1940s versus a team in 2016. For now, I'd love to hear how badly you think the results came out.


THE GOATS

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 2015
4. 1978
5. 1997
   ELITE, ELITE, ELITE
6. 1998
7. 2010
8. 1993
9. 2003
10. 1995
11. 1975
12. 1948
13. 1949
14. 1984
15. 1966
16. 1986
17. 1951
18. 2017
19. 1954
20. 1970
    GREAT, BUT NOT ELITE
21. 2004
22. 1977
23. 1980
24. 1992
25. 2005
26. 2019
    VERY GOOD, BUT FLAWED
27. 1988
28. 2001
29. 2011
30. 1999
31. 2022
32. 1994
33. 1981
34. 1968
35. 2020
36. 1983
37. 2025
38. 1962
39. 2016
40. 1969
41. 1958
42. 1952
43. 1971
44. 2024
45. 1964
    PRETTY GOOD, SERIOUS FLAWS
46. 2002
47. 1957
48. 1959
49. 2000
50. 2018
51. 1955
52. 1972
53. 1973
54. 2014
55. 1950
    UNDERWHELMING, BELOW THE STANDARD
56. 1982
57. 2023
58. 1976
59. 1956
60. 2007
61. 2006
62. 1987
63. 1961
    TROUBLE IN PARADISE
64. 2008
65. 1960
66. 2013
67. 1985
68. 2009
69. 1979
70. 1990
71. 1963
72. 1974
73. 1965
74. 1967
75. 1989
76. 2021

Based on feedback that era penalty was too strong and postseason accomplishments were not factored heavily enough, I present a revised version of the algorithm.

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 2015
4. 1978
5. 1948
6. 1997
7. 1949
8. 1998
9. 1951
10. 1993
11. 1966
12. 1975
13. 1984
14. 1954
15. 2010
16. 2003
17. 1995
18. 1958
19. 1986
20. 2017
21. 1970
22. 1947
23. 2004
24. 2011
25. 1977
26. 1980
27. 1952
28. 1992
29. 1988
30. 2005
31. 2019
32. 2001
33. 1962
34. 1999
35. 1968
36. 1994
37. 2022
38. 1971
39. 1981
40. 1991
41. 2014
42. 2016
43. 2020
44. 1964
45. 1969
46. 1983
47. 2025
48. 1950
49. 1955
50. 1957
51. 1959
52. 1946
53. 2024
54. 2002
55. 2000
56. 2018
57. 1972
58. 1973
59. 1945
60. 1982
61. 1956
62. 2023
63. 1961
64. 1976
65. 1933
66. 1987
67. 2006
68. 2007
69. 1942
70. 1934
71. 1960
72. 2008
73. 1979
74. 2013
75. 1985
76. 2009
77. 1931
78. 1963
79. 1990
80. 1965
81. 1967
82. 1974
83. 1989
84. 2021
    
    
    Is it better? What do we think?

 

[UKBB4Ever]

The bottom 2 have to be the bottom 2.

As for number 1, my algorithm says 1978.

 

[kybassfan]

2015 w/Poythress was the best of the bunch. After that, a coin flip between 1996 and 2012 for 2 and 3. Rest looks about right. 1978 might want to fight about it.....

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Awesome to see the 1997 team get some recognition! That team was ELITE before DA went down. One of the biggest what ifs in our history. Not really a “what if”, they would’ve cut the nets down with DA. No doubt in my mind.

IMO, the list is pretty spot on.

 

[gbl97]

Looks good. I might have 2014 higher than #52 with its runner up banner. They took a while to get going, but gave us probably the most fun tourney run in UK history.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

You have some serious recency bias in ranking the Fabulous Five that low. As well as the 1951 champs at 17 and ranking our only undefeated season in 1954 while outscoring opponents 87.5 to 60.3 and outrebounding them 52.7 to 34 at 19. Adolph Rupp with no team in the top ten is pretty offensive from my viewpoint.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Awesome to see the 1997 team get some recognition! That team was ELITE before DA went down. One of the biggest what ifs in our history. Not really a “what if”, they would’ve cut the nets down with DA. No doubt in my mind.

IMO, the list is pretty spot on.

They would have won it anyway if the whistle had been any where close to fair. Arizona had zero FG's the last 10 minutes of that game and the refs bailed them out repeatedly.

 

[dlh331]

You have some serious recency bias in ranking the Fabulous Five that low. As well as the 1951 champs at 17 and ranking our only undefeated season in 1954 while outscoring opponents 87.5 to 60.3 and outrebounding them 52.7 to 34 at 19. Adolph Rupp with no team in the top ten is pretty offensive from my viewpoint.

I agree; Cawood Ledford lived to see teams through the mid-1990s; he said the 1954 team was the best UK squad he ever watched. Many national articles have been written that had 1954 UK as an all-time top 12 college basketball team.

Rupp had at least 5 teams that were top 15 all time at UK: 1948, 1949, 1951, 1954, and 1966. Hall had 3 (1975, 1978, 1984); Pitino 3 (1993, 1996, 1997); Tubby 1 (1998), and Cal 3 (2010, 2012, 2015)

 

[Blueism]

You have some serious recency bias in ranking the Fabulous Five that low. As well as the 1951 champs at 17 and ranking our only undefeated season in 1954 while outscoring opponents 87.5 to 60.3 and outrebounding them 52.7 to 34 at 19. Adolph Rupp with no team in the top ten is pretty offensive from my viewpoint.

The 1954 team was absolutely amazing. Probably Rupp's best team, if you do not compare eras and leave the body of work alone minus postseason. However, I'm not sure margin of victory in that era is the best way to compare across eras. For example, you had the 1947 team beating teams by a margin of over 30 per game. There were multiple teams in that era achieving ridiculous win margins. It isn’t to take anything away from the 1954 team, but as someone who frequently watches and/or listens to games from the 1940s and 1950s, there is no doubt that college basketball was a very different sport. This is something I pointed out in the original post — if you’re someone who feels that era bias shouldn’t exist I hear you. In that case, most of the best teams are going to be teams in the 1940s and 1950s where competition was much less fierce, skills were much more rudimentary, training programs were minimal and basketball strategy was in its relative infancy. If you’re creating an algorithm to rank teams, at some point, you will have to choose what holds priority. A.) Are you going to heavily weight postseason results? B.) Are you going to heavily weight the larger sample size, which is regular season? C.) Are you going to try to weight a body of work that tries to account for both? Because the 1954 team did not compete in the postseason, a postseason consideration will force them down the algorithm in model A or model C, in this example. I tried giving the highest injury bonus to the 1954 team (eight points) due to the fact that everyone and their mother knows the 1954 team was going to cut the nuts down if Hagan, Tsioropoulos, Ramsey etc. were to have been eligible. In reality, however, fate did not have that outcome (even though it was entirely out of their control) and I can’t rate a team in the 1950s without postseason success above those who did. That said, my algorithm, I feel, actually did not weight postseason accomplishment enough by the way in this iteration you’re looking at. My latest version has an even greater bonus structure for national championships, final fours and national runner-ups, because those do matter most. I appreciate your feedback on this, as this is what I need to hear to question some of my assumptions.

 

[Blueism]

I agree; Cawood Ledford lived to see teams through the mid-1990s; he said the 1954 team was the best UK squad he ever watched. Many national articles have been written that had 1954 UK as an all-time top 12 college basketball team.

Rupp had at least 5 teams that were top 15 all time at UK: 1948, 1949, 1951, 1954, and 1966. Hall had 3 (1975, 1978, 1984); Pitino 3 (1993, 1996, 1997); Tubby 1 (1998), and Cal 3 (2010, 2012, 2015)

The 1954 team is ranked just below 2017. How well do you think the 1954 team would perform versus the 2017 team in a neutral setting? Personally, I'd expect a blowout in favor of 2017. However, my system intends to respect the past. Therefore, we have both --- acknowledgement of a major discrepancy in eras but also teams from the past in the Elite category, such as 1954.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

The 1954 team was absolutely amazing. Probably Rupp's best team, if you do not compare eras and leave the body of work alone minus postseason. However, I'm not sure margin of victory in that era is the best way to compare across eras. For example, you had the 1947 team beating teams by a margin of over 30 per game. There were multiple teams in that era achieving ridiculous win margins. It isn’t to take anything away from the 1954 team, but as someone who frequently watches and/or listens to games from the 1940s and 1950s, there is no doubt that college basketball was a very different sport. This is something I pointed out in the original post — if you’re someone who feels that era bias shouldn’t exist I hear you. In that case, most of the best teams are going to be teams in the 1940s and 1950s where competition was much less fierce, skills were much more rudimentary, training programs were minimal and basketball strategy was in its relative infancy. If you’re creating an algorithm to rank teams, at some point, you will have to choose what holds priority. A.) Are you going to heavily weight postseason results? B.) Are you going to heavily weight the larger sample size, which is regular season? C.) Are you going to try to weight a body of work that tries to account for both? Because the 1954 team did not compete in the postseason, a postseason consideration will force them down the algorithm in model A or model C, in this example. I tried giving the highest injury bonus to the 1954 team (eight points) due to the fact that everyone and their mother knows the 1954 team was going to cut the nuts down if Hagan, Tsioropoulos, Ramsey etc. were to have been eligible. In reality, however, fate did not have that outcome (even though it was entirely out of their control) and I can’t rate a team in the 1950s without postseason success above those who did. That said, my algorithm, I feel, actually did not weight postseason accomplishment enough by the way in this iteration you’re looking at. My latest version has an even greater bonus structure for national championships, final fours and national runner-ups, because those do matter most. I appreciate your feedback on this, as this is what I need to hear to question some of my assumptions.

I feel you have consider what they accomplished against the competition they played. You seem to be treating this as if they were to play head to head. The game has changed drastically over the decades especially the application of the rules and the infusion of black players (Rupp started fighting the SEC wishing to integrate his team in the 50's) so it is not really fair to do a head to head comparison imo. There were limitations beyond our control for much of Rupp's career.

 

[Blueism]

I feel you have consider what they accomplished against the competition they played. You seem to be treating this as if they were to play head to head. The game has changed drastically over the decades especially the application of the rules and the infusion of black players (Rupp started fighting the SEC wishing to integrate his team in the 50's) so it is not really fair to do a head to head comparison imo. There were limitations beyond our control for much of Rupp's career.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying the 1948 team is the best team in Kentucky history. Without era considerations, they probably are. They dominated mercilessly all year, won the national championship in prominent fashion and also won a gold medal. I'm sure you could see that someone also may decide they do want to compare eras. No, I don't think the 1948 team could stay within 70-80 points of the 1996 or 1997 team, so I believe it's fair to discredit based on era. I've rewatched the '48 title game personally about 8 times because I love the era.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

We will just have to agree to disagree about discrediting based on era. To automatically discredit teams because they were restricted by the rules of their time seems unfair to me but it's hard to dispute what you are saying in terms of the quality of some later rosters.

 

[dlh331]

I do want to say I really appreciate the work put in by Bluism. Outstanding job and a very interesting topic. A quick question (as you seem really good at this); what are the 5 best teams ever?

My choice:
5. 1991 UNLV
4. 1975 Indiana (not 1976)
3. 1972 UCLA (Walton's Sophomore year)
1B. 1968 UCLA (Alcindor's junior year)
1A. 1996 Kentucky

 

[Blueism]

I do want to say I really appreciate the work put in by Bluism. Outstanding job and a very interesting topic. A quick question (as you seem really good at this); what are the 5 best teams ever?

My choice:
5. 1991 UNLV
4. 1975 Indiana (not 1976)
3. 1973 UCLA (Walton's Sophomore year)
1B. 1968 UCLA (Alcindor's junior year)
1A. 1996 Kentucky

For the same reasons I provided in my system explanation, era matters to me. Kareem is an otherworldly talent and I don't want to dismiss that, but 1996 is absolutely the greatest team of all time in my view. There is no 1A or 1B to me, if you allow era comparison. If you don't compare eras, I think you're stuck with 67 or 72 UCLA as the best, maybe argument for the undefeated Loosiers or the 1948 Kentucky team. I just can't think in those terms. I always think, what if they played? To me, the best five of all time off the top of my head:

1. 1996 Kentucky
2. 1992 Duke (yuck)
3. 1991 UNLV
4. 1984 Georgetown
5. 2012 Kentucky

I'm sure if I thought about it, I'd shoot out a different response but those came straight off the dome.

 

[dlh331]

For the same reasons I provided in my system explanation, era matters to me. Kareem is an otherworldly talent and I don't want to dismiss that, but 1996 is absolutely the greatest team of all time in my view. There is no 1A or 1B to me, if you allow era comparison. If you don't compare eras, I think you're stuck with 67 or 72 UCLA as the best, maybe argument for the undefeated Loosiers or the 1948 Kentucky team. I just can't think in those terms. I always think, what if they played? To me, the best five of all time off the top of my head:

1. 1996 Kentucky
2. 1992 Duke (yuck)
3. 1991 UNLV
4. 1984 Georgetown
5. 2012 Kentucky

I'm sure if I thought about it, I'd shoot out a different response but those came straight off the dome.

My bad, I meant 1972 UCLA (not 1973). Your list is very good.

 

[BlueSince92]

Generally about how I would rank them.

Although imo that 1997 team healthy would eviscerate everyone but 96 and maybe 2012.

 

[Artlaibesghost]

Obviously every squad that hung a banner should be ahead of the 2015 team. Results matter

 

[UKWildcats1987]

It's all about national titles here.

1. 96 UK
2. 2012 UK
3. 78 UK
4 through 6 48, 49 and 51 n some order.
7. 98 UK
8. 58 UK

Then everyone else.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

1978 would beat 1996 if played under the rules of 1978.

If played under the rules of 1996 it would need to be a 7 game series and it would most likely go 7 games.

I think 1978 would win the series too.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

You have some serious recency bias in ranking the Fabulous Five that low. As well as the 1951 champs at 17 and ranking our only undefeated season in 1954 while outscoring opponents 87.5 to 60.3 and outrebounding them 52.7 to 34 at 19. Adolph Rupp with no team in the top ten is pretty offensive from my viewpoint.

WOW! That 1954 team was quite dominating! I knew they were very, very good! I didn’t know they were THAT good! No doubt “they” had an axe to grind with making the seniors “ineligible” for postseason play. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that was a “special case rules enforcement” against UK. Odd how that always seems to only happen to us.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

1978 would beat 1996 if played under the rules of 1978.

If played under the rules of 1996 it would need to be a 7 game series and it would most likely go 7 games.

I think 1978 would win the series too.

I see this a lot. IMO, the 1978 team wasn’t deep enough to win a 7 game series against that 1996 team. JMO.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

WOW! That 1954 team was quite dominating! I knew they were very, very good! I didn’t know they were THAT good! No doubt “they” had an axe to grind with making the seniors “ineligible” for postseason play. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that was a “special case rules enforcement” against UK. Odd how that always seems to only happen to us.

Banned from post season play because they were grad students. The only time that has ever occurred. UK won it in '48, '49, and '51. The 1950 team finished 25-5 and #3 in the AP poll yet were not invited to the NCAA tournament.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

I see this a lot. IMO, the 1978 team wasn’t deep enough to win a 7 game series against that 1996 team. JMO.

The 1978 team was quite deep. James Lee, Jay Shidler, Lavon Williams, Freddie Cowan on the bench. Aleksinas to spell the bigs. That team averaged almost 90 points a game with no shot clock and no 3 point line. '96 would not have turned them over like they did other teams. '96 would have no answer for Robey. Which if played under '78 rules would be key.

Both great teams. I was at both FF's so I saw them both up close. It's a fun argument to have. But I will always say 1978.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Banned from post season play because they were grad students. The only time that has ever occurred. UK won it in '48, '49, and '51. The 1950 team finished 25-5 and #3 in the AP poll yet were not invited to the NCAA tournament.

I thought that was the only time it had ever happened. Sickening.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

1978 would beat 1996 if played under the rules of 1978.

If played under the rules of 1996 it would need to be a 7 game series and it would most likely go 7 games.

I think 1978 would win the series too.

78 won 4 of its 5 ncaa tourney games by single digits.

96 won 4 of 6 by double digits. .

96 was dominant.

Idk about thus goofy mythical matchup but by logical comparison 96 was more dominant.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

78 won 4 of its 5 ncaa tourney games by single digits.

96 won 4 of 6 by double digits. .

96 was dominant.

Idk about thus goofy mythical matchup but by logical comparison 96 was more dominant.

You mean because ‘96 played lesser competition they were more dominant?

There’s no logic there.

‘96 was ranked number 2 much of the season.

‘78 was ranked number 1 most of the season.

None of that would matter head to head.

I will always say that ‘78 was the better team.

I’m sure many are just as convinced that ‘96 was better.

It’s ok for them to be wrong.

 

[dlh331]

The 1978 team was quite deep. James Lee, Jay Shidler, Lavon Williams, Freddie Cowan on the bench. Aleksinas to spell the bigs. That team averaged almost 90 points a game with no shot clock and no 3 point line. '96 would not have turned them over like they did other teams. '96 would have no answer for Robey. Which if played under '78 rules would be key.

Both great teams. I was at both FF's so I saw them both up close. It's a fun argument to have. But I will always say 1978.

1996 UK dominated Tim Duncan, who was a top 10 player of all time.

 

[Blueism]

You mean because ‘96 played lesser competition they were more dominant?

There’s no logic there.

‘96 was ranked number 2 much of the season.

‘78 was ranked number 1 most of the season.

None of that would matter head to head.

I will always say that ‘78 was the better team.

I’m sure many are just as convinced that ‘96 was better.

It’s ok for them to be wrong.

The 1978 team played two ranked teams in the regular season, winning those particular games by an average of 6 points. The 1996 team played four ranked teams in the regular season, winning those particular games by an average of close to 12 points a game. Both teams played good teams in the NCAA tournament and the 1996 was significantly more dominant there as well. No shade at an outstanding 1978 team, but to say that the 1996 squad played "lesser competition" is just false.

 

[mhs1964]

I think you have the Runts (66) too low. Also the 98 is a little too high and the 58 is too low.

 

[kybassfan]

I see this a lot. IMO, the 1978 team wasn’t deep enough to win a 7 game series against that 1996 team. JMO.

The thing the '78 team had that '96 didn't face was brutality. Hall literally changed the league with that team. '96 would run you into the ground. '78 would bludgeon you into submission. Phillips and Robey were a big tough pair of guys. I don't know for certain who would win. I do know that there would be a lot of tired players and blood on the floor.

 

[Blueism]

I think you have the Runts (66) too low. Also the 98 is a little too high and the 58 is too low.

Definitely agree that 66 and 58 are too low. My newest revision has greater postseason performance bonuses, which raised them up. As for 1958, they are by far the worst champions we ever had, but they did win the whole thing. As for 98, I don't think they are overrated. They were on that top two seed, lower one seed borderline heading into the tournament. They played a very tough schedule and still went 35-4. Very few teams in history of the school have won 35 games. They won a national championship, beat opponents by an impressive 13.11 ppg despite being a defensive-oriented team, won a conference title, won a conference tournament championship title, and had six NBA players on their roster. Is '98 the most dominant team? No...that's why they aren't sniffing the tippy top, but they are absolutely deserving of a very high spot imo.

 

[Blueism]

The thing the '78 team had that '96 didn't face was brutality. Hall literally changed the league with that team. '96 would run you into the ground. '78 would bludgeon you into submission. Phillips and Robey were a big tough pair of guys. I don't know for certain who would win. I do know that there would be a lot of tired players and blood on the floor.

Yeah, I'm confidently going with '96 here. '78 was an outstanding team and were amazing defensively, but there is no way I think Mike Phillips and Rick Robey can keep up with the quickness and the versatility of bigs on the 1996 team, like Walter McCarty, Antoine Walker, etc. The 1996 team is even better defensively, I will add, which is important to note. Both teams gave up about the same points per game average, even though 1996 played a pace that most teams even today would struggle to maintain. The '78 team had a plodding style in a pre-shot clock college basketball landscape, so I could see it being much closer if the game was played in a late-70s vacuum, but you still gotta go with 1996. I think the bench in 96 makes it quite telling:

1978 - Bench rotation guys
James Lee - top notch
Jay Shidler - competent role player
LaVon Williams - competent role player

1996 - Bench rotation guys
Ron Mercer - great
Mark Pope - excellent bench piece
Jeff Sheppard - starter the year prior, great bench piece

....and you still had the Wayne Turner, Nazr Mohammed, Jared Prickett and Allen Edwards of the world ready to check in if needed.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Yeah, I'm confidently going with '96 here. '78 was an outstanding team and were amazing defensively, but there is no way I think Mike Phillips and Rick Robey can keep up with the quickness and the versatility of bigs on the 1996 team, like Walter McCarty, Antoine Walker, etc. The 1996 team is even better defensively, I will add, which is important to note. Both teams gave up about the same points per game average, even though 1996 played a pace that most teams even today would struggle to maintain. The '78 team had a plodding style in a pre-shot clock college basketball landscape, so I could see it being much closer if the game was played in a late-70s vacuum, but you still gotta go with 1996. I think the bench in 96 makes it quite telling:

1978 - Bench rotation guys
James Lee - top notch
Jay Shidler - competent role player
LaVon Williams - competent role player

1996 - Bench rotation guys
Ron Mercer - great
Mark Pope - excellent bench piece
Jeff Sheppard - starter the year prior, great bench piece

....and you still had the Wayne Turner, Nazr Mohammed, Jared Prickett and Allen Edwards of the world ready to check in if needed.

I would give a slight lean towards '96. 84.2ppg with no 3 point line is hardly plodding however. A lot of talk about Robey and Phillips here with little mention of Jack Givens (National Player of the year) or AA PG Kyle Macy.

 

[Blueism]

I would give a slight lean towards '96. 84.2ppg with no 3 point line is hardly plodding however. A lot of talk about Robey and Phillips here with little mention of Jack Givens (National Player of the year) or AA PG Kyle Macy.

I agree with you. Plodding was a bad choice of words. I was more talking about the style of offense where the 1978 team generated its offense more often through the low post, but they were very efficient and could score multiple ways.

I didn't mention Givens or Macy. I also didn't mention Tony Delk, Derek Anderson, Ron Mercer, etc. because my point was that 1978 would specifically struggle in the front court matchup. I think the backcourt is in favor of 1996 but it's not where I think the theoretical game would be won. Delk/Anderson/Epps vs Macy/Claytor/Givens mostly cancel one another out. Givens is the best player of those six, but Truman Claytor (or Jay Shidler) would be, by a mile, the worst player either team is starting. I just don't see 1978 beating 1996 --- it doesn't mean they aren't great. 1978 is a great team, but I see 1996 as the greatest college basketball team of all time.

 

[mhs1964]

Definitely agree that 66 and 58 are too low. My newest revision has greater postseason performance bonuses, which raised them up. As for 1958, they are by far the worst champions we ever had, but they did win the whole thing. As for 98, I don't think they are overrated. They were on that bottom two seed, lower one seed borderline heading into the tournament. They played a very tough schedule and still went 35-4. Very few teams in history of the school have won 35 games. They won a national championship, beat opponents by an impressive 13.11 ppg despite being a defensive-oriented team, won a conference title, won a conference tournament championship title, and had six NBA players on their roster. Is '98 the most dominant team? No...that's why they aren't sniffing the tippy top, but they are absolutely deserving of a very high spot imo.

Thanks for the recap of the 98 team. I posted without really looking up their actual record. In my memory (that of an old man) they struggled all year and caught lightning in a bottle. They were my favorite champion because it was so unexpected and it was the last UK team my father got to see before his death. Your case for them being ranked high is well stated and convincing. I agree with your assessment of the 58 team. I just felt they were ranked way too low In the original post.

 

[kybassfan]

Yeah, I'm confidently going with '96 here. '78 was an outstanding team and were amazing defensively, but there is no way I think Mike Phillips and Rick Robey can keep up with the quickness and the versatility of bigs on the 1996 team, like Walter McCarty, Antoine Walker, etc. The 1996 team is even better defensively, I will add, which is important to note. Both teams gave up about the same points per game average, even though 1996 played a pace that most teams even today would struggle to maintain. The '78 team had a plodding style in a pre-shot clock college basketball landscape, so I could see it being much closer if the game was played in a late-70s vacuum, but you still gotta go with 1996. I think the bench in 96 makes it quite telling:

1978 - Bench rotation guys
James Lee - top notch
Jay Shidler - competent role player
LaVon Williams - competent role player

1996 - Bench rotation guys
Ron Mercer - great
Mark Pope - excellent bench piece
Jeff Sheppard - starter the year prior, great bench piece

....and you still had the Wayne Turner, Nazr Mohammed, Jared Prickett and Allen Edwards of the world ready to check in if needed.

Regarding defense, 96 had the press and they trapped in the half court. That was why their depth was important. That style burns a heck of a lot of energy.

In response, 78 had Kyle Macy and Jack Givens. Both were excellent press busters when used together. Further, Walker and McCarty were going to have to contend with a lot of physical strength and guys that really didn't mind knocking you down. If you have played the game, you know that wrestling someone that long will wear you out.

In my opinion, there is no clear cut winner here. Both teams were paragons of their style. It would be a dog fight. A finesse team versus a team with an excellent finesse player in Macy that also could play in the gutter. I remember Hall implying that there was no joy in 78 they were all business. Its a game I would pay to see.

 

[darkshadesofblue]

2011 too low, mo

 

[Littlecreek10]

Regarding the 78 vs 96 debate, the 78 team played a tough 1-3-1 zone that often takes away outside shooting. Also, Robey and Phillips could move pretty well for guys their size with quicker James Lee, LaVon Williams and Fred Cowan who could come in for a faster pace if necessary. There was real concern just before the semifinal game against a VERY QUICK Arkansas team with the Triplets but Kentucky ran with them easily. I believe the three point shot would have helped 78 because it would have opened up the middle for Robey, Phillips, and Lee to go to work while Macy, Givens, Claytor, and Shidler would have bombed teams with 3s. 78 may have had an even better season.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

I agree with you. Plodding was a bad choice of words. I was more talking about the style of offense where the 1978 team generated its offense more often through the low post, but they were very efficient and could score multiple ways.

I didn't mention Givens or Macy. I also didn't mention Tony Delk, Derek Anderson, Ron Mercer, etc. because my point was that 1978 would specifically struggle in the front court matchup. I think the backcourt is in favor of 1996 but it's not where I think the theoretical game would be won. Delk/Anderson/Epps vs Macy/Claytor/Givens mostly cancel one another out. Givens is the best player of those six, but Truman Claytor (or Jay Shidler) would be, by a mile, the worst player either team is starting. I just don't see 1978 beating 1996 --- it doesn't mean they aren't great. 1978 is a great team, but I see 1996 as the greatest college basketball team of all time.

I get your point. ‘78 was not plow horse basketball Tubby style but it wasn’t race horse basketball like ‘96 either.

It was a different game. Played inside out.

They scored a lot because of efficiency. Not pace.

That’s why the rules they were play under would be key.

Under the ‘78 rules ‘96 wouldn’t have a chance.