Kentucky Sports Radio
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
The end of the year is always a great time if you enjoy two things: (1) Reviewing the past and (2) Lists. You cant throw a stick without reading someone’s Top 10 “Somethings of the Year” and I admit that I ready nearly all of them. This is especially true this year, as we are not only ending the year but also the decade. The first full ten year period of the 21st Century will be completed in just a couple of weeks and thus it is time to do a bit of a review. Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reviewing the decade in UK Sports and a number of other topics over the coming weeks, with the following topics as examples upcoming:
Duncan Cavanah — All Decade UK Football Team
Fake Gimel — Best UK Villains
Tomlin — Best Sports Movies
Dustin Rumbaugh — Top Ten Recruiting Legends
Hunter Campbell — Top Ten UK “Near Misses”
Intern — Most Obscure Players
Will Lentz — Best UK Stories in TV Show Form
With that said, we must start somewhere, and I decided to go with the All-Decade UK Basketball Team. This was part of my continuing endeavor to write about UK basketball in as many “Greatest” lists as possible, and has engulfed a good part of my thinking in the past weekend. In compiling the list, I went by three strict criteria:
1. The only performances that counted are those from the 1999-2000 season to the 2008-2009 season. Thus ten postseasons, all in the 2000s. Unfortunately that means no John Wall, but it is how it is.
2. Only what the player did while in college at UK was considered for ranking. Rondo’s heroics in the pros are not part of the discussion.
3. Where there is a tie, I take winning over individual glory. We love watching great players, but we like winning more. I take a player who helped lead to wins when all other things are equal.
Now I grant you that this decade was not as star-packed as the 1990s or decades of the past. We went through a bit of a lull at the end, and there was no Final Four for the first time in history. However there was one great season (2003), two very good seasons (2004 and 2005) and as you will see, they are represented heavily here. I am picking three teams and one walk-on, in order to have a 16 man squad that you can take with you into battle. Without further ado:
FIRST TEAM:
PG — Cliff Hawkins
SG — Keith Bogans
SF — Tayshaun Prince
PF — Patrick Patterson
C — Jamaal Magloire
In coming up with the list, there were only two locks. Keith Bogans was the first and if the decade had an MVP, he would have been mine. He was the best player on the best team of the decade (2003) and finished his career as a Top 5 scorer in the history of the school, and one of the more underappreciated players to put on the uniform. The other lock was Tayshaun Prince, who was unfortunate enough to have his Senior season during “Team Turmoil.” Tay hit game winners throughout his career, had the great 5 threes in a row UNC game, 41 against Tulsa in the NCAA Tournament and is headed for the rafters in Rupp one day.
The other three were harder. I picked Cliff Hawkins as the starting point guard in what was an agonizing choice. The next two point guards were probably better players, but Hawkins had a better UK career. Starting point guard on two teams that both were the #1 overall seeds in the NCAA Tournament. Individually he was not a superstar, but his UK career was better than most realize. I took Patrick Patterson at Power Forward in a decision that could easily be reversed with the Second team player. Patterson carried the UK team through difficult times and was a better player than Hayes. He didnt win as often, but his individual talent places him here. Jamaal Magloire is the Center, due in large part to his First Team All-SEC finish. He only played one year in the decade, but it was a great season and trumps the other candidates.
SECOND TEAM:
PG — Rajon Rondo
SG — Gerald Fitch
SF — Jodie Meeks
PF — Chuck Hayes
C — Randolph Morris
The decade was so even on talent that this team could give the first a run for its money. Rajon Rondo may be the most talented player to play at UK in the decade, but he falls here due to two inconsistent years. However his talent and production is undeniable. Gerald Fitch had the best career you dont think about. He was the best player on the 2004 team that was the #1 overall seed in the tournament and is a Top 25 scorer all time. I added a third guard spot to put Jodie Meeks in the group, because his Junior season forced him onto this team. His 54 points may stand forever. Chuck Hayes is the player on this list who was most punished by our “position” method of ranking…he is 4th in the decade overall to me. And Randolph Morris goes at Center, the most talented big man to play at UK for the decade, but his effort kept him from ever reaching true greatness.
THIRD TEAM
PG — Ramel Bradley
SG — Joe Crawford
SF — Kelenna Azubuike
PF — Erik Daniels
C — Marquis Estill
Walk-on Patrick Sparks
The third team is filled with a group of “almost 2nd team” players that just missed the cut. Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford seem to almost always go together and they find the same team here. Both could score in bunches and got better every year. Neither ever had team greatness and seemed always just one step or shot away from reaching the next level. Kelenna Azubuike is a player that had he stayed one more year, could have contended for much higher honors. He was coming into his own as a scorer on the 2005 team and may have been the hardest dunker to ever play here. Erik Daniels was a player no one knew out of high school, who played all four years and got better each season. He was a true winner and his teams were always better when he was in the game. Finally, Marquis Estill may be the most forgotten member of the 2003 squad, a big man from Kentucky who could step out and shoot the three. He also left early, one year away from contending for a first team spot on this list. I throw in Patrick Sparks because I cant leave him out. He is a key ingredient of two iconic moments in UK basketball…the free throws against UL and the bouncing rim shot against Michigan State. The buzzcutted one is still one of the most remembered players from the decade for non-UK fans.
I like this group. What you can see is that a case can be made for various players on various teams. Outside of Bogans and Prince, there are no locks and different people could see it in different ways. I would like to see these teams match up and long for the day in ten years when whoever is running this site (it wont be me), does the Calipari era group for 2010-2019…I think I already know its starting point guard.
More stuff coming all day….
[powered by WordPress.]
Bill Keightley Report : Never to be forgotten.
The views and opinions expressed on this site and the images contained herein do not necessarily reflect those of cn|2 or Insight Communications.
29 queries. 0.974 seconds
December 14th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Nothing from the 2 funniest writers on this site, Beisner and Drew Franklin?! Come on now Jones, do your homework!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Matt Simms will be playing football at UT next year. Guess he enjoyed the Orange Pride girls.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
BTI doesn’t get a list? WTF?
December 14th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
2010-2019 first team only has two places left:
PG Wall
PF Patterson
SF Gilchrist
X
X
December 14th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I could have at least gotten “Top UK Head Coaches of the Decade”. (Think about it.)
December 14th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Patterson is on there but Wall is not?
December 14th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Patterson is great, but personally I would put Hayes on the first team for the same reasons Hawkins is ahead of Rondo
December 14th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Yes, really tough call on Hayes vs. Patterson. Hayes did have much better talent surrounding him (save for this season). Boy, that’s a dead heat.
I don’t know if Rondo was inconsistent as a frosh. Actually, thought he was very good that year, and maybe the team’s best player (including Hayes) during the Elite Eight tourney run. Had a bad soph campaign, but Tubby’s system did him no favors.
Loved that 2003 team, but the 2005 team (though it had more losses) was possibly better. The 2003 team was aided by the fact it feasted on a very weak SEC.
This decade shaping up to be much better as we anticipate much better talent.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
From mediocracy to obscurity that pretty much sums up a BTI post. Looks like Matt has found the perfect niche for an article.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Shouldnt we be doing all decade teams when the decade is actually over a year from now. The Decade is not officially over until December 2010. Im just saying.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
10) Thank you for your opinion, it will be duly noted in the captains log.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:09 am
11 just out of curiosity who keeps the captains log
December 15th, 2009 at 12:12 am
in their spare time:
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/37YHEmi0yskrpW0i?cmpid=ey_fb_self
December 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
10) The decade is over in 16 days. 2000-2009 is ten years.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:15 am
shit it didnt work
December 15th, 2009 at 12:16 am
First team for Hawkins? Seriously? I must have missed his all star year as every year I watched him the dude was dribbling it off his leg and out of bounds.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Correction:
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/YsS9GjAeiXxuzdtC?cmpid=ey_fb_self
December 15th, 2009 at 12:18 am
These are some great teams Jones and I would love to see a Round Robin Tournament with these 3 teams to see who would win.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:19 am
16)Hawkins never put up huge stats but he was a very consistent point guard for 4 years. I am sure the only reason he beats out Rondo is 4 years to 2 years.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I’m pretty sure when you start to count you start with 1 not 0. So, I have to agree, the decade is over a year from now and John Wall needs to be on the list.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Hawkins the best on-the-ball defender I think UK ever had at point.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:32 am
great post again–jonesy on a roll. i love the shout out to Daniels. your description of his high “+/-” (for you hockey fans out there) and positive effect on the team is spot on.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:34 am
20) so by that logic, the 21st century didn’t start until 2001?
December 15th, 2009 at 12:39 am
12) Matt Jones maybe… I don’t know.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Did you miss the typo in the bold sentence in your very first paragraph Matt? Change “ready” to “read”.
And great site, by the way. This is my first comment on here, but I’ve been reading the site ever since the Calipari era got going and I heard about the site.
It’s great to have some fresh excitement about UK, especially when prior to following you guys, I was getting all my “new” UK info from my grandpa with his Cats Pause subscription (I’m in Phoenix).
December 15th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I don’t care if John Wall had only played 1 game in this decade, that dude should be the first team point guard.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:55 am
25) hear anything about chapman’s kid?
23) the 21st century did started in 2001 one. But Y2K1 is not as catchy, and no one wants to party likke its 2001.
Ofcourse Hawkins goes 1st team. The criteria was winning over glory. I think Hawkins wins both. 4 yr player, led the 2003 SEC undefeated team. As far as glory, aside from Rondo’s steals record what else did he do? I think Hawkins’ last second three AT Tennessee to send it into overtime (Cats pull it out) trumps Rondo’s three to put away SC at Rupp.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:56 am
27) What about Chapman’s kid? I guess I’m out of the loop.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:01 am
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/5LGyZePPa0peCx48?cmpid=ey_fb_self
December 15th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Ok, not to drag this out(Thats a lie, I do want to drag this out, its Monday and the next UK game is not til Saturday), BUT the decade started in 2001, not 2000. Official best of decade lists should not be discussed until next December. That way Demarcus Cousins(IF HE STAYS) could improve and possibly make the all decade team. Ten years is figured in 1-10, hence 2001-2010, not 0-9. And Matt, you went to Duke? Really?
December 15th, 2009 at 1:07 am
30) Duke law.
28) Saw a post awhile ago about Chapman’s kid getting looks from D1 schools. I thought they were still in the Phoenix area.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:36 am
I woulda chose Ravi Moss instead of Sparks.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:49 am
32) Fits the walk on mold better than Sparks.
Wouldn mind getting to see Sparks play for the stallions
December 15th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Just to clear things up, 1 BC was followed with 1 AD. There was no year 0. Hence, the first decade was 1 Ad - 10 AD, 11 AD - 20 AD, etc, bringing us to our current decade, 2001 - 2010. More importantly, how does one reference this current decade? The Zeroes? The Oughts? More, more importantly, how do you define an ‘All Decade’ team? The most talented players? Those that had the greatest impact? Those with the biggest stats? It’s all subjective. I can’t imagine leaving Rondo off of the first team, but, then again, this isn’t my blog.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Talent never counts. If John “the most talented man in the world” Wall doesnt play a minute, he doesnt even make All-SEC freshman team despite being so talented.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Wow. Are people really this dumb or are you all just joking around. When one says the 70s for example, it means all years that start with 7, 70-79, right? It does not mean years 71-80. It’s no different for 2000-2009. The next decade starts with 2010 and goes to 2019. Come on people.
Nice post Matt. Go cats.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:10 am
i agree on most the names, but not the order so much. and i am going based soley on how good their uk careers were, not only talent. also i will name a wlk-on and a “team-that-could-have-been.” here are my 1,2, and 3 teams:
first team:
g- gerald fitch
g- keith bogans
f- tayshaun prince
f- patrick patterson
c- randolph morris
second team:
g- ramel bradley
g- jodie meeks
g- joe crawford
f- chuck hayes
c- marquis estill
third team:
g- cliff hawkins
g- keleena azibuke
g- rajon rondo
f- erik daniels
c- jamaal magloire
walk on- patrick sparks/bobby perry
“team that coulda been”:
g- rashaad carruth
g- desmond allison
g/f- derrick jasper
f- marvin stone
c- jason parker
December 15th, 2009 at 3:15 am
The 21st century started on Jan. 1st, 2000. Thus, new century = new decade. 2000-2009 is the first decade of the 21st century. Pretty simple.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:04 am
38) thank you!
December 15th, 2009 at 4:10 am
KSR should ask Santa Kige R. to do a video on his top ten UK moments, if anything as a xmas present for the ksr readers…
December 15th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Honestly think the second team beats the first team 7 out of ten times. All Chuck does is win.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am
29 How can you put Gillispie & his mischevious smirk in that ? Pitino would have been a better choice or better yet, whoever was before Rupp………
December 15th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Matt:
“Azubuike the hardest dunker that ever played here”? What about James Lee? If you’re gonna pass out superlatives, know your history. Azubuike might be the hardest dunker in this decade, but he couldn’t carry James Lee’s duffle bag.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am
38) the 21st century started January 1st, 2001. The gregorian calendar (the calendar we use to tell what year it is) started with year 1 AD, not year zero.
hence the first century was 1-100, followed by 101-200, etc. So the 21st is 2001-2100.
So the first decade of the 21st century is 2001-2010.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am
The 21st century is the current century of the Christian Era or Common Era in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001 and will end December 31, 2100.
wikipedia.com
December 15th, 2009 at 7:45 am
20–Dude, you must be a drop-out if you really believe that. Let me help you…
When you are born, are you 1? No, you’re technically 0 and now on the clock. You’re first year is age 0-1. Got it.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:51 am
46: This isn’t about age, it’s about counting. The gregorian calendar started with year 1. Seriously. It didn’t start with 0. That’s not opinion, it’s just the way it was drawn up.
So right now, we’re in the 2009th year of the calendar, not 2010.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:56 am
You guys are arguing what is technically right with what is conventionally right. Conventionally, more people than not are going to think the first decade of the century is over in a couple weeks, and since we are talking about something which is arbitrary, that makes it “right”.
Another way to explain what is technically correct is that this is the 2009th year, not that 2009 have completed since we started counting. So on Jan 1, 2001, was when 2000 years had been completed. But conventionally it is just considered that the first century had 99 years and every other 100. You can start counting centuries or decades whenever you want, but whatever makes”conventional wisdom” is considered to be “correct”.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:08 am
[...] Kentucky Sports Radio is making holiday lists: “The end of the year is always a great time if you enjoy two things: (1) Reviewing the past and (2) Lists. You cant throw a stick without reading someone’s Top 10 “Somethings of the Year” and I admit that I ready nearly all of them. This is especially true this year, as we are not only ending the year but also the decade.” [...]
December 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I get so tired of people putting out these same diatribes about this being a decade and that being a decade. Everytime someone puts out a “best of” list we have to be subjected to these rants. Will this help you all feel better? You guys are sssssooooooooooooooooo smart. I know this because you can use the word Gregorian. Honestly, do you think you are imparting some great knowledge that everyone else hasn’t already heard a million times before? By now most people know that the pop culture calendar is not in harmony with the Gregorian calendar because, as I said above, everytime a pop culture “best of” list comes out we get to hear you same four or five people rant about how this is not a decade. Please give it a rest. There are obviously more people operating on the pop culture calendar these days than on the Gregorian calendar and you aren’t going to convert the masses.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:18 am
36 & 38. Thank you
46. Ha ha. Yeah, It’s pretty simple. When people talk of an all decade team they use years ending in 0-9 not 1-10. Didn’t even know it was under debate. Matt’s choice for the decade is the correct one.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Why is Miles Austin hugging Tayshaun Prince?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:22 am
full-blown nerd fight unleashed.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Will you guys please drop the calendar debate. Yes, 2001 started the 21st century, but a decade is a 10 year span, be it 2000-2009, 1997-2006, or 1943-1952. Since Matt defined his decade as 2000-2009, as long as that is ten years (which it is) then it’s correct.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:36 am
50) Thank you… I get so sick of listening to this crap every 10 years. Who cares?
Also, it was specifically mentioned that wins would outweight talent - then you go & put Patterson over Chuck based on talent, even though Hayes won more… it’s all about consistency, my friend.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
So I’m curious that you say when it’s a toss up you go for winning over talent but you take Pat over Chuck. Not trying to complain too much here but you kind of contradicting yourself. Everything else I totally agree with on your lists. Great post.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Chuck and Pat should both be first team IMHO. First, very few teams in college these days actually play a true center and secondly, I believe Pat has logged a sufficient number of minutes at the 5 spot during the last two years to qualify as a center. Put Chuck at the 4 and Pat at the 5 if you really need too. Both probably had more impact on the program in the last ten years than any other player save maybe Tayshaun and possibly Wall depending on how the rest of the season goes.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Sorry, should be to instead of too.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
PACK THE HOUSE !!! Get to Memorial Sunday to support the 9-0 Hoops team (I still like Lady Kats) against ‘lil sister(Louisville) !!!!
http://www.kentucky.com/kentuckysports/latest/story/1059694.html
December 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
# 17 deserves its own post on the site today. Get the video up.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:28 am
57) I’d be ok with that. Mag was great but those 2 deserve first team nods.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:31 am
help kentucky win this poll… lets go big blue nation http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/10453022/Kansas,-Texas-still-1-2-in -AP-hoops-poll
December 15th, 2009 at 9:33 am
37) you mean to tell me that Dan Issle is not in any of those????? he should be first team if anything
December 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
No way Chuck Hayes is above Patterson. Hayes is this decades version of Richie Farmer. He was a good player (overrated) that everyone LOVED. Patterson is a GREAT player- that will have his number honored.
Hayes is good dont get me wrong but he isnt Patterson.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am
63. Issle played in 2000-2009 ? huh ?
December 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I got an advance copy of Patrick Barker’s “Top ten teams of all time other than UK”. He prefaces by saying he is a huge UK fan and they are number one, but if you had to throw them out, this is what it would look like:
1. Duke
2. Louisville
3. Tennessee
4. Indiana
5. 1980 USSR Soviet Hockey team
6. The Prison guard team in the original Longest yard
7. AWA tag team of Boris Zukoff and Soldat Ustinov
8. Duke (Womens team)
9. The Smothers Brothers Comedy team
10.South Bend Central Bears in Hoosiers
I disagree with most, if not all of his list. Zukoff and Ustinov were okay, but I would not put them in my top ten. Thoughts?
December 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am
You guys are all missing the point… Any ten year span of time can be considered a decade, so long as it contains ten years. In this instance, Matt chose 2000-2009 for his decade. There is nothing that says a decade has to span specific years.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Morris was so lazy and uninspired. Putting him in from of Estill, who was also on
the 2003 team, is an insult.
Good day, Randolph. I said good day.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:40 am
For anyone who cares….. Rex Chapmans son is playing in the king of the bluegrass tourney at fairdale high school…his team plays trinity on Thursday I think it’s at 7
December 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
69) is uk still looking or is a Phoenix based Vinny Zollo?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I don’t put Morris ahead of Estill, or Muhammad…results outweigh potential.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
70 last I heard was back in may… He said he was still committed to uk as of then but gave the impression he was keeping his options open…. I mean he was a Gillespie cradle recruit… Never been a big fan of that early middle school recruiting… But as of now I’m not real sure where he really fits in… I could be wrong…. But I don’t know about his jumper….
December 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I think I misunderstood the question now that I re read I’m not sure if we were or are looking at chapmans son… I mean he’s got good genes that’s for sure… Not sure though to be honest
December 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
71) Didnt Mohammed leave after the 98 season?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Anyone who thinks the decade should start with 2001, ask yourself this:
Best players of the 80’s… 1980-1989
Best players of the 90’s… 1990-1999
Best players of this decade… 2001-2010 ??? WTF
Where the hell do you think 2000 should go?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Wow, some of you guys will argue about anything. I didn’t realize how many douche bags were on this site.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I’m with the “decade ends with 2010″ crowd. There was no year 0 A.D. The first year (of our Lord) was 1 A.D. As such, the first decade ended in 10 A.D. Thus, every decade since ended with “0″ and not “9.”
But if you’d rather define decade’s by their classic rock name’s - 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, etc. - then, yes, this decade is done in a couple weeks.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
For more nerdly discussion of this topic, see what-decade-is-it-anyone-anyone
December 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Any ten year span is a decade. that’s not the issue. 2000-2009 is “a” decade. But it’s not “The first full ten year period of the 21st Century.” The Gregorian Calendar, which is where we get our “years” has no year 0. Period. It’s not debatable. So the 21st century, both by detail and by definition, cannot have started until 2001. There’s no “conventional wisdom” workaround.
Conventional wisdom might also lead one to believe the contraction of “you” and “are” is “your” as well, but that doesn’t make it true.
So a decade can be whatever ten year span you like- 1995-2004, for instance, is a decade. but “The first full ten year period of the 21st Century” ends after next year, not in a couple weeks.