# The best college starting 5 ever assembled?



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

Call me bias all you want but I think the best starting 5 ever assembled for one year in college has to be the North Carolina Tar Heels.

You know what team I'm talking about. I'm talking about the team with the perfect fit of talent at ever position. In college basketball ever team needs 1)Great PG 2)Great shooters 3)Great slashers 4)Great rebounders 5)Great post scorers.


And UNC had it with...

PG Ed Cota
SG Shammond Williams
SF Vince Carter
PF Antwan Jamison
C Brendan Haywood

In college basketball every team that makes if far in the tourny has a great PG. And Ed Cota was the perfect college PG. He passed the ball and his only mission was to set Carter, Williams and Jamison up to score. He was a great, great floor leader, had control of the game at all times and really new what he was doing. And it is hard to find a player that is totally focused on setting up others, and his chemistry with Carter and Jamison was something else!

In college the perfect SG most of the time is a undersized one. A smaller player that can create shots because of the mismatch he creates. And Shammond did that, and when you look at the mental toughness he brings to the table it makes him that much more important. And he was the shooter on the team, every team needs one to be great.

Then comes probably the most talented two basketball players on any college team in the past 5 years. I don't think there will ever be players that great on the same team again. Carter was just superior to everyone he went against. Heck a play they ran was just throwing a lob to either Carter or Jamison form Cota. They were that great, they could do anything they wanted and Carter provided the athletic slasher everyone needs.

For PF Jamison was so dominate it was pathetic. He out played ever single PF he went up against. Carter and Jamison could control the offensive glass ever game, and offensive rebounding is very important in college basketball. Jamison not only dominated the rebounding departement, he also was a very dominate scorer in the low post. He had a unstoppable back to the basket game, you could not even get you hands up and he shot the ball. Just a all around great college player, really is one of a kind.

And at center they did not need much, and Haywood provided shot blocking ability to the team. He also was a pretty good low post threat. Only a FROSH but played really well and was the last piece to the puzzle.


*Sure they did not win a title. But just because they did not win a title doesn't mean they were a great lineup of players. Top to bottom it has to be one of the best starting 5's in history. Heck they only went 2 deep, maybe 3 but that is pushing it. So those 5 players carried the team, only 5 players. They made the Final Four two years in a row I believe. And Ed Cota went to a amazing 3 Final Fours in 4 years, so how can't he be one of the great PG's in college history? He has the record for getting 1000 points, 1000 assists and 500 rebounds in a career, and started ever year since he was a freshman as well. (Just giving proof his jersey should be hung at the Dean Dome...)


*So what do you think, is this the best starting five. And remember to take into account the weak bench they had. And remember what are the wanted positions in college, passing PG, slashing SF, small shooting SG, rebouding scoring PF, and shot blocking center. And don't look at wins, just look at them overall. Because I think UNC was the most balanced starting 5.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

UCLA has some great lineups with Walton and Alcindor back in the day.

When Kentucky had all those future NBA players, Walker and Mercer, they were pretty great, and they won a title.

Another all time great team would be Duke, when they were starting Hurley, one of the better college guards to play, Latener, in some circles considered a top 5 college talent and Grant Hill. That was a pretty amazing lineup.

Maybe when UCONN had El Amin, Voshkul and Hamilton was a great one too.

There are just too many. Though, I agree, the UNC lineup you put down was a great one, its likely a team like the Fab 5 from Michigan would have been very successful against them in some sort of Dream Fantasy Match. As there are very favorable matchups for Michican throughout. Even Jamison, one of the best college players at UNC, and the best player on your fantasy team, would have been equaled, if not dominated by college Webber.

Also, I think that while you've done a good job of reasoning why they didn't win, to be one of the all time best lineups, you should have won a championship. Winning shouldn't ever be undersold. Even in the tournament, most teams, even the really deep ones only play 8 players. 

I'm only considering how these guys played when they were in college. I think that the Duke lineup was one of the best, but clearly, based on pro performance, it doesn't stack up well against the Fab Five or Kentucky.


----------



## Jehuisthere (Jan 12, 2003)

how bout the UNC team that had Jordan, Worthy and Perkins???


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

UofL had some great ones back in the day. I'd have to say the 1983 Louisville team might've been the greatest college basketball lineup ever assembled:

PG Milt Wagner
SG Lancaster Gordon
SF Scooter McCray
PF Rodney McCray
C Charles Jones

Milt "Ice" Wagner was just simply great. Milt and Darrell Griffith, plus Pervis Ellison, are arguably three of the ten greatest college basketball players of all-time. Milt is Dajuan's dad, and was a better college player than Dajuan was. The thing he's always going to be remembered for is, in the Metro Conference tournament final, with 0.1 seconds left on the clock, he was fouled and went to the line to shoot 2, with Louisville down 68-69, against Memphis. He nailed the first one, and before he shot the second one, he turned around, smiled, and waived to the crowd. He then proceeded to hit the second free throw. Milt never missed a free throw in his career in the last two minutes of a game or in a close game (five points or less). And another amazing free throw stat is coming later with this team. Anyway, Lancaster was a good shooter and slasher; solid all-around game. He played pro ball for a while. The McCray brothers were just plain awesome. Definitely as good as the Vince Carter/Antawn Jamison tandem that UNC had a few years back. Then Charles Jones. The guy was a bad mofo. In his four years, he had to go against Patrick Ewing and/or Hakeem Olajuwan. He held his own against both of them, and was never outrebounded by either. He was a good shotblocker, too. But he was one of those guys that's like Shaq; a career 60% free throw shooter or something. But here's the amazing stat: he never, not in his four-year career, missed a FT in the last ten minutes of a game. He was probably in the top five in centers his whole college career. This team's got everything your criteria lists, and should have won a national championship, if it hadn't blown its final four matchup with Phi Slamma Jamma. 


The 1980 National Championship team was great, too:

PG Jerry Eaves
SG Darrell Griffith
SF Derrick Smith
PF Rodney McCray
C Wiley Brown

You can make arguments for Grif being the best college basketball player ever. Guys just plain did not go to the boards with Wiley, Rodney, and Derrick. If you got a rebound, it's because it came to you, and most of the time they'd take it away even in those cases. And Grif ... man ... the guy had a 48-inch verticle. To show you how tough Wiley Brown was ... after his college basketball career, he played TE for the Eagles. These guys don't play like teams do now. There was no finesse when they went to the rim. When Darrell Griffith or Derrick Smith decided they were throwing one down, you got out of their way, because they were going straight at you and straight over you, and throwing down some of the hardest dunks I've ever seen. Grif was on, like, three Sports Illustrated covers, including one famous one around Louisville, with a picture of him dunking, and "The Great Griff" next to it. Everybody on this starting lineup but Wiley played in the NBA, plus three backups that played in the NBA. Griffith became a three-point shooter when it was put in, and is still in the top five of the NBA All-Time in three-point shooting. He had a ten-plus year career, most of it with the Jazz, just before Hornacek. Derrick died in a plane crash, I think it was. He will always be remembered by UofL fans, and has always been a fan favorite. This team goes by your "criteria," plus has to be one of if not the toughest team in basketball history. Here's a great article you should read on them:

http://courier-journal.com/cjsports/dennycrum/sp031801s3813.htm


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

of course, I am going to say a Kansas team. I don't think they are the best ever, but I think it was ONE of the best. 1996-1997 Kansas Jayhawks.

PG-Jacque Vaughn
-----NBA Player. Now a starter with Orlando Magic. Also played with Jazz and Hawks. Big 8/Big 12 All Time Assist Leader. Kansas Jayhawks Basketball HOF, and retired Jersey on rafters.

SG-Jarod Haase
-----Currently an assistant coach for Kansas. In charge of scouting. One of the most Profilic three pointer shooters. Kansas keep track of floor burns, and he is one the top floor burners. Good defender

SF-Paul Pierce
-----A NBA superstar. If not left Kansas early, would've be Number 2 in scoring behind Danny Manning. Kansas best slasher in Roy WIlliams history. He can shoot, drive, defend, block, and rebound. He is what we call in baseball, a five tool player. He now plays for the Boston celtics. HOF and Retired Jersey

PF-Raef LaFrentz
----NBA Player. He is one of the all time blockers, rebounders, and scorers in KU history. Number 2 behind Danny Manning. Roy Williams consider him one of the best PF's he ever had, and better than current player, Nick Collison. Plays for the Mavs. HOF and Retired Jersey

C-Scot Pollard
-----NBA player. Now plays with Kings. One of hte best bizairre players ever, chops and painted finger nails that come out of my head now. One of the top shot blockers in KU history. 

That Kansas team had 4 NBA players, and not including some off the bench. Billy Thomas who now plays in NBDL. Ryan Robertson who was Kings for rookie ball now plays in Europe. I love that team. I still think it is better than last years team.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> Call me bias all you want but I think the best starting 5 ever assembled for one year in college has to be the North Carolina Tar Heels.
> 
> You know what team I'm talking about. I'm talking about the team with the perfect fit of talent at ever position. In college basketball ever team needs 1)Great PG 2)Great shooters 3)Great slashers 4)Great rebounders 5)Great post scorers.
> ...


this is a joke right?


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> That Kansas team had 4 NBA players, and not including some off the bench. Billy Thomas who now plays in NBDL. Ryan Robertson who was Kings for rookie ball now plays in Europe. I love that team. I still think it is better than last years team.


I agree that that is a good lineup based on how the guys turned out, and the team was productive in college for sure. But they didn't go to a Final Four, which I think HAS to be a prerequisite for a great lineup. If you are ranking how they turned out though, it's certainly one of the best starting 5's. But one of the best ever? Maybe even the Danny Manning national championship team would be rated high, just because Manning was an unstoppable beast.

CHL Not to start any garbage, but I have been following basketball for a long time. I've read a lot, seen a lot of old game tape etc. etc. This is the first time I have heard Wagner, Griffith and Ellison in anybodies top 10. I mean, are any of them in a class of guys like Alcindor, Latener (who's name I don't think I've ever spelled correctly), Walton, Maravich or even 2 time player of the year Ralph Samson? I mean granted, they were talented in college, but when you say "arguably" you'd have to argue pretty hard to convince anyone that either of these three guys is top 10. I know you are a big U of L fan, but outside of the diehard fan base, I don't think a lot of people share this opinion. Though, I agree, the accomplishments that you have listed are impressive, I think there were teams in the 80's which were likely better, such as the Houston team with Akeem and Clyde. Just a thought. Honest to god, this is the first time I have read or heard anyone say that a Louisville team is one of the greatest ever. I have to chalk it up to you being the superfan that you are.


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

We weren't better than Phi Slamma Jamma? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!? The Doctors of Dunk beat Phi Slamma Jamma more times than they beat us! Louisville, Houston, and Georgetown were the big three teams back in the '80s, and we had a better record against the other two (and they always all played) than either of the other two. Griff was the National Player of the Year in a landslide, almost twice. Ellison was as well. Milt, maybe not, but there are a lot of people, especially with Griffith, that will rate them VERY highly. I'd say that Griff was definitely as good in college as Reggie Miller was, and better than Clyde.


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

And yeah, I know I'm biased, but you have to realize just how damn good Darrell Griffith was in college.


...and Louisville... five final fours in seven years - we had to have some pretty good teams. But it's the opinion of almost all Card fans that the 1982 or 1983 teams were our best ever; better than the National Champions in 80 and 86.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

UNLV was pretty awesome


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> of course, I am going to say a Kansas team. I don't think they are the best ever, but I think it was ONE of the best. 1996-1997 Kansas Jayhawks.
> 
> PG-Jacque Vaughn
> ...


AGREED!!! Honestly, this team kills the UNC team Ozzy mentioned. And there's absolutely no question it was better than last year's team. Too bad they blew it in the tourney, this team was as talented as they come. The best in my memory.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> AGREED!!! Honestly, this team kills the UNC team Ozzy mentioned. And there's absolutely no question it was better than last year's team. Too bad they blew it in the tourney, this team was as talented as they come. The best in my memory.


]

that was my frosh year. 

remember that teams started 22-0. WOn 22 games in a row to start a season. If that does not get props, then no one think they are a good team. PLus, they won without their starting PG the first 11 games. Who here KU beat in that 22-0 streatch
-Santa CLara
-LSU
-Caifornia
-Virginia---Maui Champs
-San Diego
-Cincy--Great 8
- @ ULCA
-George Washington
-UNC-Ashvile
-NC State
-Washburn
-Brown
-KSU
-Texas
-Niagara
-Baylor
-Iowa State
[email protected] UCONN
-A & M
-Colorado
-Tech
-Nebraska

Then they lost at Missouri, and did not lost again to Arizona


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*Ozzy you are kidding right??*

That isnt even the best lineup in your schools history. That team did not even win an NCAA Championship. Kentucky's team circa '97 were pretty good. Syracuse had a pretty good team. The 02' Terps were not weak at a single spot. Duke in 99 should have won it all. They were great. Some of the older IU teams were pretty good. Duke 93 may have been the best. UCLA lets not even go there you could go all day with them.


----------



## Last Dance (Aug 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CoolHandLuke</b>!
> And yeah, I know I'm biased, but you have to realize just how damn good Darrell Griffith was in college.
> 
> 
> ...and Louisville... five final fours in seven years - we had to have some pretty good teams. But it's the opinion of almost all Card fans that the 1982 or 1983 teams were our best ever; better than the National Champions in 80 and 86.


Not to be to mean CHL but if I'm right you made it to the Final Four in 1980,1982,1983,and 1986 not in 79 or 87. Those UL teams are awesome either way and are definitely top 5 (esp. 83). 

Others you have to mention is the '90 UNLV team, '96 Kentucky Wildcats, the UNC team Ozzy mentioned, but after all that gotta go with the '76 Indiana Hoosiers. I mean if for no other reason they only lost one game in two years and that was to UK after Scott May broke his arm the game before.

PG-Quinn Buckner
SG-Bobby Wilkerson
SF-Scott May
PF-Tom Abernathy
C-Kent Benson

On that team there aren't any dominating pro players honestly but all these guys dominated the college level. May and Benson were both #1 overall picks in the draft and Abernathy and Buckner were both top 10 picks though. These guys destroyed inanyone in there way posting a 63-1 record over two years with absolutely no bench. JMO of course but these guys are the level against which all teams have to be measured.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

Ok first off the little Kansas statement is just plan pathetic! Alright, one of the main arguments of my statement is that UNC did not win a title. Well I would not be talking because Kansas, well they are probably one of the biggests bust in college history, UNC got to 2 FINAL FOURS! Kansas on the other hand with that "great" lineup, well they go to ZERO FINAL FOURS! So don't bring that Kansas stuff in here, if people say UNC was not that great because of winning well then Kansas is totally out of the picture.

And as for the Houston teams and Kentucky. The key is I said starting 5, not just two solid players.


I think UNC with that lineup is the perfect team. Again you have a PG that would look for his teammates all day long, and had a unreal chemistry with the two super stars. He brought the ball up the court and they did not need him to play offense or even defense really because the superior athletic ability of Carter, Williams and Jamison made up for that.

They have a dead eye shooter from deep, and I can make the argument that the only reason they did not win a final four is because Shammond was off both times they lost, he did not shoot well in either of those games. But again in college small SG's are almost impossible to stop, and Shammond was a great small SG. Take Hatten, Ezra, and Gordon in todays game, those kids light it up and partly because they are undersized, quick SG's.

Then you have the studs, Jamison and Carter. Please name me a more athletic par of fowards that would beat them. Come'on Raef against Jamison is not even close, Antwan would kill him on the glass and in the low post. Then you have Carter vs. Pierce, that is a little closer but Carter might be better overall with his athletic skill. 

The combo of Vince and Antwan was just a perfect with the steady Ed Cota and the firery Shammond Williams. 

Then you have the big men, and Haywood did not do much but he was a very solid player as a FROSH.

And again they were the team, they went 1 maybe 2 deep, that is it! And they still made it to two final fours...


*But it is hard to compare difference era's of college ball, so I'm changing it to the best starting 5 in the last 10-15 years. I still say Kansas has no chance though, one because of the "winning" factor, and two Jamison and Carter were a harder par to guard compared to Raef and Paul.*


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

Then we have the Fab Five issue.

*Michigan*
PG Jalen Rose
SG Jimmy King
SF Ray Jackson
PF Chris Webber
C Juwan Howard

vs.

*North Carolina*
PG Ed Cota
SG Shammond Williams
SF Vince Carter
PF Antwan Jamison
C Brendan Haywood


Ok take wise Michigan maybe looks better, but I do not believe those players started ever game, I think they were a deeper team than UNC had. Sure Michigan is bigger but that also means they were slower. Ed Cota would have real trouble with Rose on defense, but Ed could take Rose and set him up pretty good on offense. Then Shammond on Jimmy, kind of even, King is bigger obviously but Shammond was a very tough college player and I think his quickness on offense would really give him a advantage on King. Then Carter on Jackson, I think Jackson would just get dominated, Carter would kill him on the glass and overall Carter would help UNC's team defense because of his super quickness and shot blocking ability. And the fact that Vince could get to the hoop and attack any time he wanted because Michigan with Webber and Howard are not awesome shot blockers all the time.
And Howard would obviously have the advantage at center, but Haywood could get him in the post and score some points, and Haywood is a better shot blockers as well and that would help with playing against the bigger Michigan team. Then you have Webber and Jamison, I do think Jamison would take him on offense and on the glass, well Webber could not keep him off it. And Webber would have to pay attention so much to the slashing Vince Carter than I think Jamison would get some open looks down low. Webber might be able to overpower Jamison but quickness, I think Jamison is faster.

Overall team balance I feel UNC has the edge. Michigan is bigger but bigger is not always better when talking college basketball. Because it is harder to penetrate in college, and the quicker team always has the advantage because they can penetrate easier. And once a team can penetrate the lane they can create most offense. But again, remember UNC this was basically there entire team, those 5 guys.


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Last Dance</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to be to mean CHL but if I'm right you made it to the Final Four in 1980,1982,1983,and 1986 not in 79 or 87. Those UL teams are awesome either way and are definitely top 5 (esp. 83).
> ...



You're right, we went in 1977, not '79, sorry. 


That team was incredible. I just talked to Kent Benson the other day; he lives right up the street from me. 


How about Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma? 

Hakeem Olajuwan, Clyde Drexler, (the leading scorer) Michael Young... that was a great team.


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

OZZY, you can't just disregard the old teams. The '76 Hoosiers, '83 Louisville, '83 Houston, maybe a Ewing Georgetown team... The Fab Five, that Kansas team, '96 Kentucky, and '97 (?) UNC were all great in the '90s, but you're not even looking at the older teams. Check out that link... I think you'd like the old UofL teams of the '80s a lot and would be interested to read some stuff on them.

And Brendan Haywood was like the 8th or 9th man for UNC that year. Mahktar N'Diaye and Ademola Okulajah were the two big men. Remember, there was Ed Cota, Shammond Williams, Vince Carter, Antawn Jamison, Ademola Okulajah, and Mahktar N'Diaye, and they took turns rotating in alphabetical order to see who didn't start.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> Ok first off the little Kansas statement is just plan pathetic! Alright, one of the main arguments of my statement is that UNC did not win a title. Well I would not be talking because Kansas, well they are probably one of the biggests bust in college history, UNC got to 2 FINAL FOURS! Kansas on the other hand with that "great" lineup, well they go to ZERO FINAL FOURS! So don't bring that Kansas stuff in here, if people say UNC was not that great because of winning well then Kansas is totally out of the picture.
> 
> And as for the Houston teams and Kentucky. The key is I said starting 5, not just two solid players.
> ...


Listen guy, you asked who's the best lineup, not the lineup that accomplished the most. This is without a doubt the best college team that I can remember. The UNC team was good, but can't compare to the '97 Jayhawks. Come on, give em there props, they got beat based on poor performance and luck twice in the season, they could've very easily won every game that year. The fact they didn't doesn't change how amazing they were. Now, I'm not saying they're the best team ever, just the best team in the past 15 years or so. 

And Carter and Jamison weren't harder to guard. Jamison and Raef were about equal, but Pierce was a better college player than Carter, and has turned out to be the better pro player. And Vaugn was much better than Cota, especially considering Vaugn was a senior that year, and Cota was what, a soph?


----------



## onetwo88 (Jul 16, 2002)

Michigan's fab five!


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> Ok first off the little Kansas statement is just plan pathetic! Alright, one of the main arguments of my statement is that UNC did not win a title. Well I would not be talking because Kansas, well they are probably one of the biggests bust in college history, UNC got to 2 FINAL FOURS! Kansas on the other hand with that "great" lineup, well they go to ZERO FINAL FOURS! So don't bring that Kansas stuff in here, if people say UNC was not that great because of winning well then Kansas is totally out of the picture.
> 
> And as for the Houston teams and Kentucky. The key is I said starting 5, not just two solid players.
> ...


LISTEN IT WAS MY OPINON. JUST LET IT BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I THINK THAT KANSAS TEAM HAS ONE OF THE BEST STARTING 5 EVER. I HOWEVER DID NOT SAID IT WAS THE BEST EVER, ONE OF THE BEST.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Ozzy, I would take Duke's 92 team over the team you listed any day of the week. If you are talking best all time COLLEGE lineup, your UNC lineup couldn't even touch Duke's 92 team. They had the perfect balance with one of the greatest college point guards in college history (Hurley), one of the greatest all-around post players in ACC history (Laettner), and then the perfect combination of athleticism and defense with the rest of the lineup.

If you're talking best future nba lineups, your UNC lineup beats this Duke lineup. But if you're talking best college lineup, there is no way.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

And your Duke '92 team can't even match up with Kentucky's Fabulous Five.


Ok, someone here name a starting five that won the SEC championship, the NCAA Championship, the NIT Championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal all in the same year besides *KENTUCKYS FABULOUS FIVE* and I'll change my opinion of who I think had the best starting five.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> And your Duke '92 team can't even match up with Kentucky's Fabulous Five.
> 
> 
> Ok, someone here name a starting five that won the SEC championship, the NCAA Championship, the NIT Championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal all in the same year besides *KENTUCKYS FABULOUS FIVE* and I'll change my opinion of who I think had the best starting five.


I forgot who was all on that Kentucky team?

McCarty, Walker, Mercer, Anderson, ????

That was a great team to watch.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

No. Kentucky's Fabulous Five was in the 50's I believe...my memory is a little rusty on them...I haven't talked about them to anyone in awhile...but I do know they won an NIT championship, NCAA championship, an SEC championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal all in the same year.

Best 5 ever assembled under the greatest coach that ever lived (Adolph Rupp).


*Opinion


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> And your Duke '92 team can't even match up with Kentucky's Fabulous Five.
> 
> 
> Ok, someone here name a starting five that won the SEC championship, the NCAA Championship, the NIT Championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal all in the same year besides *KENTUCKYS FABULOUS FIVE* and I'll change my opinion of who I think had the best starting five.


I wasn't saying Duke's '92 team was the greatest of all time, I was just saying it was better than the UNC team Ozzy listed.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

Oh, sorry. I mis-read.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> I forgot who was all on that Kentucky team?
> ...


I believe the PG was Mike Epps. I know for sure his last name was Epps. 

But I would have to say the FAB FIVE was better and een though I hate to say it the Cahmpionship Duke lineup with Hill, Laettner, Hurley, Thomas, and I believe Davis.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> And your Duke '92 team can't even match up with Kentucky's Fabulous Five.
> 
> 
> Ok, someone here name a starting five that won the SEC championship, the NCAA Championship, the NIT Championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal all in the same year besides *KENTUCKYS FABULOUS FIVE* and I'll change my opinion of who I think had the best starting five.


That was one of the most impressive teams, and when you put it into context with the talent level of the players back then they might be the best ever. But they wouldn't be able to beat many of the teams from nowadays, let alone the '92 dukies or the '97 Jayhawks.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DetBNyce</b>!
> 
> 
> I believe the PG was Mike Epps. I know for sure his last name was Epps.
> ...


Im not saying that team was the best, but it was the best team to watch (for me).

I remember the PG, it was Delk. 

Delk/Anderson(whom was injured for part of it)/Mercer/Walker/McCarty--------Or am I combining a few different years.........I can't remember.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> That was one of the most impressive teams, and when you put it into context with the talent level of the players back then they might be the best ever. But they wouldn't be able to beat many of the teams from nowadays, let alone the '92 dukies or the '97 Jayhawks.



Did you watch the Fab Five play? I'm sure if you did you wouldn't have said that. Yes, basketball has come a long way since then, but no matter, no team would (not even the current Kentucky team right now) be able to beat them.

The '92 Duke team or the '97 Jayhawks wouldn't be able to beat them either, although both of those teams were incredible. Someone that's ACTUALLY SEEN THE FAB FIVE PLAY back me up! 

I still say there's no team that can beat a starting five that won the NCAA championship, the NIT championship, the SEC championship, and an Olympic Gold Medal.


----------



## spartanfan2003 (Jul 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw the Fab Five play -
PG Jalen Rose
SG Jimmy King
SF Ray Jackson
PF Chris Webber
C Juwan Howard


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I haven't seen them play. But come on, skill level, interest in the sport, size, all of this has increased tremendously since that time. I don't know much about them, but I have a hard time believing ANYBODY from that time could beat the '92 Dukies or '97 Jayhawks, I also think they'd have a hard time beating any top 25 teams from today. The game has evolved a lot. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening. Who was on their team, again? Anybody that amounted to much at the next level. KU had Raef, one of the best college players of the past 15 years, Pierce, one of the best out there, Vaugn, a tremendous college player, and Pollard, another great college player. All of these guys had great college careers and amounted to something behind college, too. Not to mention guys like Haase, another great college player. The Dukies were the same way with Laettner and Hill, and Hurley. I mean teams are just more talented nowadays.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

You can't compare across generations. It's too difficult.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

The players were Wah-Wah Jones, Alex Groza, Ralph Beard, Kenny Rollins, and Cliff Barker.

Ok, there is no team, and there never has been one apart from this one, that can win all of those things in the same year. Yes, they can easily beat any of todays teams. Why? Because they were coached by Adolph Rupp, who made basketball what it is today. He invented the fast-break, the full court press, and the pick and roll. He also perfected the man-to-man defense. With a team that was coached by a guy who learned from the guy who invented basketball and invented many thing in basketball, the Fabulous Five could easily beat any current teams.

I'm not saying those other teams were bad. Quite the oppostie. They were incredible. But, if you see the Fab Five play, you'll see that they (only them back in that time) played basketball like its played today. There would be nothing new for them to compete against.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> The players were Wah-Wah Jones, Alex Groza, Ralph Beard, Kenny Rollins, and Cliff Barker.
> 
> Ok, there is no team, and there never has been one apart from this one, that can win all of those things in the same year. Yes, they can easily beat any of todays teams. Why? Because they were coached by Adolph Rupp, who made basketball what it is today. He invented the fast-break, the full court press, and the pick and roll. He also perfected the man-to-man defense. With a team that was coached by a guy who learned from the guy who invented basketball and invented many thing in basketball, the Fabulous Five could easily beat any current teams.
> ...


None of those guys were anything spectacular, not a single one of them could hold their own against Paul Pierce, or Grant Hill. What are their heights? And just because Rupp coached them doesn't mean anything. You're right, nobody can win all those things in one season, but neither could they, today. You may think differently, but I don't see how they could hold their own against anybody with any talent whatsoever from today's game, let alone one of the best teams of the past 10-20 years ala the Jayhawks or Dukies that have been mentioned.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

I don't really care what you say. Maybe if you SAW them play and actually proved some DECENT points instead of saying "Basketball has changed since then" (or something like that) and ask what their heights were. I can understand what you're saying, but I promise you, if you saw them play, you'll notice that they played just like everyone does today.

Yes, because Adolph Rupp coached them does matter. Coaching matters a hell of a lot. Have you payed attention to the Kentucky team at all this year? Yeah, their only that way because Tubby is coaching them that way, and Adolph Rupp is 10000000000000000000000 times better than him and is easily one of the best (not THE best) coaches in basketball history.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

Oh, and how do you know they weren't anything spectacular? You never saw them play, therefore you have no right to say that.

I got 4 words for you:
Fundamentals, Skill, Fundamentals, Skill.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> Oh, and how do you know they weren't anything spectacular? You never saw them play, therefore you have no right to say that.
> 
> I got 4 words for you:
> Fundamentals, Skill, Fundamentals, Skill.


Because I've never heard of them. I know plenty of players from that period that went on to become great pros, these guys apparently didn't. Look at boxing. You think Rocky Marciano could go 49-0 in today's boxing? You haven't come up with any points yourself, other than saying if I had actually seen them play I would think differently. Well, I promise you that I wouldn't. You don't even hear them brought up that often. There's no way in hell I can see them beating any team of skill nowadays, and you think that they'd destroy the best of all-time. If you think so, that's fine. I personally think they'd be destroyed in today's game. I guess we better leave it at that, I doubt I can change your mind and you sure as hell can't sell me on the fact they could beat any team in NCAA history.

And Rupp was a great coach, but coaches can only take a team so far. Hell, the inventor of the game is the only man to have a losing record at KU. Roy Williams has never won a championship. Dean Smith, Lute Olsen, these guys couldn't win it every time. A coach doesn't win a championship, the players do, and the players simply couldn't beat the teams of today.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Its funny that you are crediting Rupp for changing the game when he didn't allow black players on his team.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> Fundamentals, Skill, Fundamentals, Skill.


That's really just 2 words, each repeated once.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> I got 4 words for you:
> Fundamentals, Skill, Fundamentals, Skill.


Well then why stop there? Hell those guys could probably take the dream team.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

The Truth, you're just like everyone else who thinks Rupp is a racist for one game. Read my post earlier. 

In 1920-21, Rupp coached at a high school in Kentucky, he tried to get the school to allow black people to play. Problem? They wouldn't. Even in his first few years in the SEC, he tried to get them to let black people play at Kentucky. Problem? They wouldn't. Finally, when black players WERE allowed to play, he only accepted the best of the best, and all of the good black players were taken. You forget that in the early years of black players being allowed to play, a lot of teams didn't have any black players either. So if you call that racism, then a lot of coaches must've been racist huh?

And just because he didn't have black players on his team doesn't mean he didn't event the pick and roll, full court press, and fast break. Which he did invent these, thus changing the game of basketball and helping make what it is today.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> In 1920-21, Rupp coached at a high school in Kentucky, he tried to get the school to allow black people to play. Problem? They wouldn't. Even in his first few years in the SEC, he tried to get them to let black people play at Kentucky. Problem? They wouldn't. Finally, when black players WERE allowed to play, he only accepted the best of the best, and all of the good black players were taken. You forget that in the early years of black players being allowed to play, a lot of teams didn't have any black players either. So if you call that racism, then a lot of coaches must've been racist huh?


I'm not going to argue with the validity of your claims, but I think you can see how someone might be skeptical about the claims that Rupp would only "accept the best of the best" and that all of them were taken, so he had to play with white people. To me, it seems like Rupp fans and admirers glossed over some of his flaws, so that his memory would be one of greatness.

So going with an assumption that your claim is invalid, and that Rupp was a racist, what does that mean though? Really nothing. At the time, in the Southern USA, nearly every white man, had some sort of racial bias. Whether it was flagrant or not. It was the times. Does that justify racism? No, not at all. But at the same time, even if he was a gigantic bigot, that shouldn't tarnish the basketball legacy of Rupp. He clearly was an innovator, and his teams did win. Being a racist, or even saying he was a bad man, doesn't take away from his coaching accomplishments.

However, to refute your claim that the Fabulous Five were the best college team ever. If you set up some sort of scenario where all of the teams, during their college peak could play each other, it is highly likely that your team would get waxed by every entrant. Out of all the teams suggested, they would likely get blown out. Does that make them a bad team? No, not at all. The game has changed so much. Back when they played, even thought they had great fundamentals, there was no 3 point line, dunking wasn't allowed. Those are just some of the rule changes that would affect the games and how they played. Put on top of that weight lifting, jump training, AAU ball and todays players play more ball, at higher levels. Your team couldn't compete athletically with today's teams. Too short and too slow. Even their fundamentals, their dribbling skills, passing etc., which appeared superior to the competition, may be weak in comparison to the top teams today. That was the original path of the question. What was the best team ever, in some sort of ideal head-to-head matchup.

Now, does that diminish the mention of your team? Not at all. Their accomplishments are phenomenal, and as you mentioned, will never be bested by other teams. However, some of that is due to how the game has changed, with all of the different levels. So maybe, your team is the "most accomplished team". But saying they are the best, I don't see how it's right.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

I see your points, Springsteen. But at the Mississppi State game in the regular season at Kentucky, the day before the game they had an autograph session where all current living former UK All Americans would sign an autograph for you. I got to meet the fabulous five and Wah-Wah was about 6'0 and Ralph Beard seemed to be at least 6'3 or 6'4. I know, maybe that's not a lot for todays standards but it counts as something. Once again, I'll have to say that if you saw this team play, you'll see that it's athletic ability at its finest. You take any average college player today and they would be able to do most of the stuff these players could, but some of the things they did (especially in the Olympics) was something it seemed (seemed) only Adolph Rupp could train them to do (remember, these guys were just college players).

I can see why you would doubt it when someone said "Rupp only accepted the best of the best". But all I can say is, its true. This guy wouldn't just take any good player, he had to have an exceptionally good player with potential to become even better. He wouldn't settle for less. I heard about the high school thing in an invitational banquet into witch the coaches (including Rupps son and Joe B. Hall) showed up along with the former players and current players. They played an hour and a half long video commerating the life of Rupp and highlighting the event over the past 100 years. They mentioned how he tried to get black players into the league. Believe me, I was a little suprised myself. You're right, it doesn't change the fact he was a great coach and he helped make the game of basketball what it is today, though, which is what I pointed out at the bottom of my last post.


----------



## Middy (Jul 16, 2002)

*not a bad one*

Not the best, but certainly very very good.

Jason Gardner- PG
Gilbert Arenas- SG
Richard Jefferson-SF
Michael Wright- PF
Loren Woods- C


Hard to match the pure talent on that 5.


----------

