Seed the title teams at UK

[treuxbleux]

(1) 1996
(8) 1958
(4) 2012
(5) 1949

(3) 1978
(6) 1951
(2) 1948
(7) 1998


1996/2012 semifinal and a 1948/1978 semifinal

Your seeds?

 

[shaolin style]

I think as a rule of thumb.. the newer teams (1996, 2012) would destroy the older teams (1948). No offense to the older teams. Even though at the time I'm sure 1948 was more dominant, with less parity. The game and players continually evolve and improve.

 

[AFKY_Blue_RedsBengals]

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 1998
4. 1978
5. 1948
6. 1958
7. 1949
8. 1951

 

[UKWildcatT]

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 1998
4. 1978
5. 1948
6. 1958
7. 1949
8. 1951

98 over 78?!! Whaaaaa

 

[AFKY_Blue_RedsBengals]

98 over 78?!! Whaaaaa

As mentioned above, I buy into the fact of athletes getting bigger, stronger and more athletic over older teams because the game evolves. An era of no shot clock or 3 point line. Guys from that squad still playing pro ball up until the last couple years. Heshimu might still but I don't know that for a fact. Your list?

 

[akaukswoosh]

As mentioned above, I buy into the fact of athletes getting bigger, stronger and more athletic over older teams because the game evolves. An era of no shot clock or 3 point line. Guys from that squad still playing pro ball up until the last couple years. Heshimu might still but I don't know that for a fact. Your list?

Heshimu played until recently. Now an asst. coach for a hs girl’s team in state last I heard.

 

[UKWildcatT]

As mentioned above, I buy into the fact of athletes getting bigger, stronger and more athletic over older teams because the game evolves. An era of no shot clock or 3 point line. Guys from that squad still playing pro ball up until the last couple years. Heshimu might still but I don't know that for a fact. Your list?

1) 96
2) 12
3) 78
4) 48
5) 49
6) 98
7) 51
8) 58

I’m ranking based on history

 

[AFKY_Blue_RedsBengals]

Heshimu played until recently. Now an asst. coach for a hs girl’s team in state last I heard.

Thanks, I did not know he was back in the Bluegrass. I know Nazr played in the NBA up until 2016 with OKC before calling it quits.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

I think you have to rank relative to other good teams in their era, at least somewhat. Otherwise 58 or 49 or 48, when 6’6 was y’all, wouldn’t even beat 09 or 13.

Still 96 and 12 are on top.

 

[TortElvisII]

Teams should be compared to teams they played against. How do they compare to teams of their era?


1 1948
2 1996
3 2012
4 1978
5 1949
6 1951
7 1998
8 1958

Reason I rank 78 4 is Michigan State and Arkansas were close to them. UMASS was close to 96. They were a super team though.

 

[eppsfan]

I can't seed teams I never saw play, but 96 has to be the 1. Nothing against 12, but older folks forget and younger bucks don't appreciate just how loaded that team was. The 3rd stringers on that team could have won a championship. In fact, they did just that in 98. I miss the days of being up twenty by half every night out. Whether they would win was never in doubt, only question was by how much. Probably a topic for another thread, but has Rick ever addressed whether he threw that Miss State game on purpose?

 

[shaolin style]

Teams should be compared to teams they played against. How do they compare to teams of their era?


1 1948
2 1996
3 2012
4 1978
5 1949
6 1951
7 1998
8 1958

Reason I rank 78 4 is Michigan State and Arkansas were close to them. UMASS was close to 96. They were a super team though.

Probably easier to rank that way. Crazy to think 48 was that dominant while only shooting 31%. I can't rank half these teams but it's interesting.

 

[MegaBlue05]

I don't think it's fair to rank modern era teams with non-modern era.

Modern (post-integration)

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 1978
4. 1998

Old school (pre-integration)

1. 1948
2. 1958
3. 1951
4. 1949

 

[Saven]

(1) 1996
(8) 1958

(4) 1998
(5) 1948

(3) 1978
(6) 1949

(2) 2012
(7) 1951

 

[Hoskins91_rivals]

Are we saying who we think would actually win if they played? The only pre-90's team I would even think about would be the 1978 team.

 

[TortElvisII]

Are we saying who we think would actually win if they played? The only pre-90's team I would even think about would be the 1978 team.

I would compare how good they were compared to other teams that year. Nobody thinks 1948 would beat 2012.

 

[KyCatFan1]

I have only seen 3 of the 8 title teams (was only 5 years old for the 78 championship and doubt I watched it) so I don't think I am worthy of ranking them all. I'd go this order with these 3 though.

1996
2012
1998

I think 2012 might have a shot to beat 1996 if you just go by the starters, but the bench would be the deciding factor for 1996.