Better UK Team . . .
- Thread starter Random UK Fan_rivals71127
- Start date
'96 has the hardware. '15 failed. It's not even a question.
Is poythress available or injured?
This debate comes up pretty often on here. 96 for me and it’s never been a debate. That 96 group was put together perfectly.
‘96 is the best college team I’ve ever watched. Not sure ‘15 is better than ‘12.
1996 was so versatile. 2015 was more talented top to bottom....but 1996 was experienced and far more explosive offensively.
96. Greatest college basketball team of my lifetime. I feel like you’d only ask this question if you didn’t see 96 play.
96. No checker boards.
Or to be more snarky, both lost one game because of Cal.
/s
Or to be more snarky, both lost one game because of Cal.
/s
96 is the best college basketball team ever assembled by any school. End of debate.
Actually I think Cal’s most talented UK team was his first one (2009-2010). It had more top end talent than 2012 or 2015 IMO. Just had one terrible shooting night.
‘96. ‘15 had an Achilles heel once Poythress went down. ‘96 was the more dominant, better team relative to ‘12 as well, although I might take ‘12 head to head.
12 is better than 15 and 96 is better than 12
15, pre Poythress injury. They were doing some crazy good things. Best in our history.
Offense that could score 86 in a half or defense that could hold a team to 7 in a half?
I’m taking the offense.
I’m taking the offense.
‘96 struggled, as a relative term, against teams with big guards and superb big men. Think UMass, Miss St, UGA and GaTech. With that in mind, 2015 would be built to give them a game.
2015 struggled, as a relative term, with quick guards, high pressure and hot outside shooting. Think Ole Miss, Texas A&M, LSU, Notre Dame, and Wisconsin. With that in mind ‘96 would be built to give them a game.
If both teams are mentally and physically fresh, I go with 2015. If it’s both teams’ 39th game of the season, I don’t trust 2015’s guard play or bench coaching.
2015 struggled, as a relative term, with quick guards, high pressure and hot outside shooting. Think Ole Miss, Texas A&M, LSU, Notre Dame, and Wisconsin. With that in mind ‘96 would be built to give them a game.
If both teams are mentally and physically fresh, I go with 2015. If it’s both teams’ 39th game of the season, I don’t trust 2015’s guard play or bench coaching.
Not sure I agree with you on 2015 being more talented than 1996.
While both teams had 9 guys spend some time in the NBA, 6 from the 1996 team managed to stick around and have decent careers of at least 7 seasons. Only 4 from the 2015 team have really managed to stick around in the NBA. Hell, even Mark Pope managed to play in portions of six different NBA seasons and ended up playing in more NBA games than Aaron Harrison, Alex Poythress and Dakari Johnson combined.
The amount of talent on the 1996 team was embarrassing and that team was without a doubt the greatest UK team of my lifetime. While 2015 was certainly a great team, and very unique in its construction, they also had quite a few close calls and could get bogged down at times against inferior teams.
Booker and Towns are stars though....that is really what I am basing it on. It is hard to compare generations but KAT and Booker were freshmen. Imagine them as SRs like Delk, McCarty, etc.
Last edited:
I would agree with you on Booker and KAT.
When I did a quick scan of both rosters, one question I asked myself was who from the 2015 team would I potentially want to add to the 1996. Booker and KAT were pretty much the only ones though. I’d be inclined to take everyone else on the 1996 team.
But if you’re taking overall, top to bottom talent, I’m probably going to take the 1996 team. Even if you’re not an all-star, it’s still no small feat to play 7+ years in the NBA and the 1996 team had 6 guys that did that.
96
They played 100% heart, 100% of the time.
They never let someone back into the game, or took their foot off your throat. They didn't play great all the time, sure, but it was never because they were lackadaisical.
They played 100% heart, 100% of the time.
They never let someone back into the game, or took their foot off your throat. They didn't play great all the time, sure, but it was never because they were lackadaisical.
Its all about the championship. 2015 would be the greatest and solidified the legacy of Cal to the point that there would be Team Blue and Team White comparisons to other years.
'96 wasn't easy either. They got a couple of fortunate calls down the stretch. '15 was making it look easier until Notre Dame.
'96 wasn't easy either. They got a couple of fortunate calls down the stretch. '15 was making it look easier until Notre Dame.
One thing no one ever mentions in these debates is the growth arc of each team. ‘96 had two losses and was something at tournament time that it just was not for much of the season (the mid-season bombs it dropped on opponents were mixed in with much closer margins against stronger teams).
Poythress went down pretty early. If he had stayed instead, he would’ve grown too and affected the growth arc of that team. I saw every game of both teams live and while I do agree that ‘96 in the end was better than 2015 in the end, I think it’s closer than most people realize. And had that ‘15 team kept Poythress, that’s a completely different equation. By the end ‘15 would have been more than just FF ‘15 plus the early December Poy we got to see.
Poythress went down pretty early. If he had stayed instead, he would’ve grown too and affected the growth arc of that team. I saw every game of both teams live and while I do agree that ‘96 in the end was better than 2015 in the end, I think it’s closer than most people realize. And had that ‘15 team kept Poythress, that’s a completely different equation. By the end ‘15 would have been more than just FF ‘15 plus the early December Poy we got to see.
1915 team held ten opponents scoreless and gave up one point five other times
