It's apparent that the elephant in the room for these threads will be the 1996 Kentucky Wildcats. Will, you know what to do.
-
-
Nobody, and I mean nobody, beats 1996.
That's not just at UK. In my mind that's in the history of the game.
Only college team I've personally seen who could beat '96 when '96 was at its absolute best was the great UNLV team in the early '90s. They rout most other champions of the last three decades assuming they were at their best.
2015 Kentucky and 1996 Kentucky would be a solid game but 2015 wouldn't be able to put the points on the board to keep up.
The next game I'm thinking of is a little more...tricky. But this weekend I'll be at the Peach Jam so I'm gonna give it a think.Comment
-
I agree on '96 versus 2015 which is the most desirable comparison. I actually think 2012 stood a better shot against '96 in a one game matchup.Comment
-
Lol....that 96 team was indeed special. And of course you may have to figure in different rules...primarily the shot clock and three point shot. Those rules being in place or not would have huge impact....even though both teams were more than capable of big scores.
96 has a big advantage in shooting guard with Delk, but Macy vs Epps and Wayne Turner? I would go Macy with this. Front line....Phillips, Robey,Givens and Lee ....pretty formidable. Yes, 96 made Tim Duncan look like a caged cat and survived Marcus Camby, but struggled against Wallace and the Syracuse zone.
I think despite the athleticism of 96, a lot would come down to which rule book you played by.....shot clock or no, three point or not.
I think it would be a heckuva game. I'd pay to watch for sure.Comment
-
I agree. I think '12 could beat then two or three times out of 10. The Pope/Davis match-up would not work out well for '96.
Not sure '12 had the numbers to hang with '96. '96 could go a solid 9 or 10. '12 was pretty thin, and it was hard to hang with those Pitino teams if you were thin.Comment
-
Right...but the purpose of the game isn't to include flukey situations but to assume both teams are playing at their absolute best.
'96 could get beat by a lot of people if they mailed it in the way they did in the SEC Tournament. But to do this we have to assume both teams are at full tilt.
'78 got crushed by Alabama. '12 let Old Dominion hang with them until the final minutes. '12 also put up one of the five worst performances of the Cal era in a game against Arkansas Little-Rock. That isn't indicative of the teams they were obviously.Comment
-
At both team's absolute full-tilt, I think 15 beats 96.
If you assume that both teams are playing at their absolute best (15 vs Kansas/UCLA, 96 vs LSU), that means that 15's Devin Booker and Aaron Harrison are shooting like they did early in the season. Depth is equal.
2015 is the best team Kentucky has ever had, in my opinion, which makes that finish even more infuriating.Comment
-
I agree, the 96 team had a better scoring punch. At times, the 15 team could struggle to score. The obvious example of that was their only loss.
96 team is the best UK team I have ever witnessed. Great depth,great withering defense and great scoring. They rarely struggled to score mainly because their defense could make easy points. Just a great,great team. The 78 and 12 teams could beat them maybe 3 times out of ten. Possibly the 15 team could and maybe the 84 team. I'm not sure any other team could beat them more than one time out of ten.Kentucky fan since 1971.Comment
-
I like what you're trying to do but it is just so hard to hypothetically put two teams on the court from different eras and accurately predict how they would match up.
I think you really have to split them up into at least two eras... Pre around 1990 and post 1990. I think that is when you see the athletes start to really change in basketball. Sure, there were outliers, but I like separating it there and also another separation around 1970. Every 20-25 years seems to be a good place to separate eras.Comment
Comment