Skip to content

Kentucky Sports Radio

University of Kentucky Basketball, Football, and Recruiting news brought to you in the most ridiculous manner possible.

BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: The Case for Michael Porter (vs. Cameron Mills)

If you listen to the radio show, you have heard 2 instances in the past few days where either Matt or a caller has attempted to compare Cam Mills and Mike Porter.  Not positive on how exactly that debate began, but Matt has been quite clear in his stance: Porter was the better OVERALL player.  Although he will likely change that opinion after he hears this: I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HIM! 

Now, I certainly don’t want to crush the name of Cameron Mills, because he is a legend to many Kentuckians.  A kid from Lexington, his father played at Kentucky, he was a high character kid, and he did what UK fans love most: he shot the ball well.  Nobody can ever argue that Porter was anywhere near the shooter that Mills was.  But, there is more to the game than shooting.  And people GREATLY forget that Mills was pretty much a 1-dimensional player at Kentucky.  He was a below average defender, only had 58 assists in his career, 28 steals in his career, and scored less points than Ravi Moss, Marvin Stone, and Desmond Allison.  Eric Bledsoe scored more in 1 season than Mills scored in 4.  I hate to throw around the word overrated, but Mills’ career has certainly been misrepresented over the years. 

Now, as for the comparison to Porter, just check out the career numbers.  And remember that Porter played 3 seasons compared to Mills 4 seasons.

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED
Porter: 90
Mills: 84

TOTAL POINTS
Mills: 365
Porter: 243
(***In Mills first 3 seasons, he scored 199 total points, 44 less than Porter)

POINTS PER GAME
Mills: 4.3
Porter: 2.7

REBOUNDS
Porter: 115
Mills: 98

ASSISTS
Porter: 142
Mills: 58

STEALS
Porter: 56
Mills: 28

WINS (IN GAMES THE PLAYER PARTICIPATED IN)
Mills: 80
Porter: 53
(***In his first 3 seasons, Mills participated in 45 wins)

So, we can come to several conclusions about the Mills v. Porter debate:

-Mills played on more talented teams.  Duh.  But, even with that, in Mills first 3 seasons, he won 45 games, Porter won 53 in his 3 years.

-Mills was a better scorer, at least in terms of points.  Although, once again, Mills actually scored LESS points than Porter over 3 seasons.

-Porter, despite only playing 3 seasons, had more assists, steals, and rebounds than Mills and his 4 seasons. 

I already know how this will play out in the comments section.  Being critical of a UK legend like Mills and highlighting a oft-maligned player like Porter will lead to the “you suck” and “just quit” comments.  Cool.  Then defend the numbers.  All the numbers point to Michael Porter being a better PLAYER than Mills.  Not a better winner.  Not on better TEAMS.  But a better INDIVIDUAL PLAYER!!  Think about it, and then comment.

With that being said, BOTH of these guys deserve a lot of respect from the fanbase.  Both represented really well in their time in Lexington.  Both played their hearts out.  Both had to ride the bench probably more than they would like, but didn’t complain.  But, the Porter v. Mills debate seems pretty cut and dry to me.  Mills was basically Jon Hood his first 2 seasons, barely seeing the floor.  In his final 2 years, he was basically Darnell Dodson without being an idiot.  But Mills was on 2 national championship teams, and hit the much remembered shot against Duke.  Without that shot, you could argue Mills would be no more remembered or loved than Allen Edwards.  Now, he is more loved than ANYBODY on the 1998 team. 

Porter, on the other hand, was never loved by the fanbase.  But, you have to admit that he was forced to play a position his final 2 years that he was not suited for.  Porter was brought to Kentucky by Tubby Smith to play shooting guard.  He was not brought in to be a primary ball handler.  But because of horrendous recruiting by Tubby and Gillispie, Porter had to be the backup point guard his sophomore season and the starting point his final year because nobody could do it better.  And in that final year, he had a positive assist-turnover ratio.  And let’s not forget, Porter did NOT lead the team in turnovers that season.  That would be Jodie Meeks.  So while I would never argue Porter was some amazing player, he did do the best he could under the circumstances. 

Point is, agree or disagree, the numbers don’t lie.  Michael Porter had more game.  He contributed MORE to the program than Cam Mills, on an individual basis.  The ball is in your court KSR readers.

Article written by Bryan the Intern

140 Comments for BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: The Case for Michael Porter (vs. Cameron Mills)



  1. UKBigDaddy
    9:07 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Not even close….



  2. DT
    9:09 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Cameron Mills – 3 Final Fours, 2 Titles
    Michael Porter – 0 Final Fours, 0 Titles

    How about memorable moments? Mills had a sensational run in the 97 tournament and a huge shot against Duke in 98. Porter? I can’t remember anything other than blown layups.



  3. 7mm-08
    9:09 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I get so tired of hearing what a great person Cameron Mills is. He is (or at least was) an arrogant bunghole. Everyone I know that has come in contact with him thinks the same.



  4. barn
    9:09 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    now let the tennessee hate begin



  5. CPKIII
    9:09 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    How come Matt Heissenbuttle is not in this debate?



  6. Trickle Down
    9:10 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mills = Reagan



  7. Lou eaton
    9:14 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Slow day in sports topics???????????? We all know these guys were not McD.s all-americans and the systems (tubby and rick) were different. Same thing with Hood who IMO is far more talented than either Mills or Porter. Cal’s ystem is wrong for Hood who WAS ranked as a top 50 player….



  8. UKBigDaddy
    9:14 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Porter = Carter



  9. JAMES MILBURN
    9:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Michael Porter: The Mike Hartline of Kentucky Basketball.



  10. WalkersGoggles
    9:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I thought his name had legally been changed to Big Fat Nasty Cameron Mills..?? I just remember someone saying he was a preacher or something that hits on members of his flock or something. Anyway…. as far as careers go, the only thing I remember about Porter was wondering why he was even playing. All I remember about Mills was him hitting big shots, and chewing on towels at the end of ball games.



  11. The Real Pioneer
    9:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I THINK THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY ISN’T TROY MCKINLEY IN THE DEBATE FOR THIS. HE WAS A GREAT SHOOTER FROM THE OUTSIDE AND ALSO A HOMEGROWN KENTUCKY BOY AS WELL. I REALLY DO THINK THAT EITHER TROY NEEDED TO BE IN THE COMPARISON OR THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ARTICLE DEDICATED TO TROY HIMSELF!



  12. voice of reason
    9:17 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    ummmm who cares?



  13. Boogiewoogie
    9:17 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Worst. Post. Ever.



  14. funcity
    9:17 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I think it is hard to compare the two. Porter was a guy with limited abilities forced to play a bigger role than he was capable. Mills was a guy with limited abilities that was able to just fill a role because of superior talent around him. I say if you put Mills on the Gillispie teams he would have much different numbers. That being said, I don’t think either one of them were very good. Mills is only remembered because of the Duke shot and Porter is only remembered out of frustration of the Gillispie era. I just think it is impossible to compare the stats of the two because of the different roles they played.



  15. ace883
    9:18 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Don’t think it’s a fair comparison until you have minutes played..steals per minute, assist per minute, pts per minute…then I think you will see the difference…the sad fact here is Ravi blows both of them away and he was a walkon…with heart..and skills..fact is Porter is the only point guard who could make Tubby’s kid and Sutton’s kid look good..



  16. Look Genius
    9:18 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    It’s about minutes played, not games played. In Mills’ first three years, how many minutes did he play? You could have won your argument had you focused on the TEAM NEEDS. Cameron Mills’ team in in 1998 needed him for ONE THING – to come in and spell other, better players and not be a liability. It was just serendipity that he could shoot.

    Porter, unfortunately, was the BEST OPTION at PG. If Mills were the BEST OPTION at SG, he would not be as loved as he is. He would be a much maligned former shooting guard and EVERY IGNORANT FAN would still be complaining why Tubby didn’t play Saul instead of him – “Ah mean, come on, even if Saul was a turrible point guard, he’d uh been better’n Mills ’cause he could keep up.”



  17. Paul Crewe's Bookie
    9:18 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    One thing we all seem to forget, whether it be basketball or life in general, numbers aren’t the only judge. It’s the little things that make a man. Or in this case, the player. Mills played his role, that of a scoring option and sharpshooter. Porter did *not* play his role as well, that of a ball handler and distributor.

    You can preach your numbers til you’re blue in the face (you usually do), but it won’t do any good.



  18. Wrong
    9:20 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    3. I get tired of you taking up valuable oxygen. Just because your cousin’s ex wife’s best friend’s daughter in-law’s uncle had a bad experience when they bumped shoulders at the chicken festival, doesnt mean he is an arrogant “bunghole”.



  19. i.b.poe
    9:22 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    #12. Agreed…. but not who cares, but why care?



  20. Timp
    9:23 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Is Mills gay? I heard him at gameday last year being some sort of MC; sounded a little light in the loafers.



  21. Catcdb
    9:24 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    DT with the #2 comment said it best. Then again, why would you ever try to compare Michael Porter, who played, participated, and was a part of such a low valley in UK basketball history to CM and his winning teams?!?! It’s like comparing apples to oranges.



  22. i.b.poe
    9:25 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Who cares?



  23. Claw
    9:25 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Hmmm…no comment. Have you seen the pic of Jorts rejection to remember from last night?
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/gametracker/recap/[email protected]/no-20-kentucky-recovers-in-time-to-edge-no-21-vandy



  24. Joey
    9:25 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Wow i can not believe this is even a comparison who in the hell thought of this debate after the big win last night?!!!!! anyways michael porter couldn’t hold mills jock strap and that is all…… GO CATS



  25. i.b.poe
    9:26 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Why care?



  26. hey ya
    9:27 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    porter also had 141 turnovers, did you forget those? fg percentage is also way in favor of mills



  27. JAMES MILBURN
    9:27 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    How bout since they’ve brought this up let’s just put the analysis and responsibility where it belongs: Porter, one of many players Tubby wasted a scholarship on who had no talent and was not UK-caliber. How can anybody blame any fan for being frustrated with how suck-a** of a player he was? Thanks to Tubby for one of his many gifts to us.



  28. UKMan
    9:27 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    you are comparing a starter to a role player. how about turnovers? The porter i remember was a point guard who had a hard time dribbling and passing. terrible post.



  29. TimPRP
    9:28 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Its pretty simple. Cameron Mills was GREAT at 1 thing. Shooting. Thats what they needed him for. No, they didnt need him to handle the ball, rebound or get steals. Mike Porter was not a very good ball handler/shooter/distributer/rebounder/anything. The bottom line is Mike Porter was awful and did nothing well. Mills was a great shooter. And your argument is terrible.



  30. BigBlueFan31
    9:28 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    It think this could be settled by one simple comment. Mills was good enough to even be on the teams he was on. Porter wouldn’t even have made it on to the practice squad during the years Mills played. Had Mills been here during Porter’s time, BCG would have loved him. He would have played a lot and put up bigger numbers. I agree with #9. Polson would start for a BCG team and average at least 5 a game.

    Fact: Collier Mills was better than both.



  31. dhighdrated
    9:28 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Is anyone else sick of the ball movement on offense where Josh or Terrence come get the ball at top of the key, NBA range, and just wait for brandon to swing by and come get it?
    it’s so predictable. Either that or Jones will try to dribble drive, and we know how that turns out. Get your big asses closer to the basket



  32. BigBlueFan31
    9:29 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I think this could be settled by one simple comment. Mills was good enough to be on the teams he was on. Porter wouldn’t have made it on to the practice squad during the years Mills played. Had Mills been here during Porter’s time, BCG would have loved him. He would have played a lot and put up bigger numbers. I agree with #9. Polson would start for a BCG team and average at least 5 a game.

    Fact: Collier Mills was better than both.



  33. Charley
    9:30 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Basketball isn’t a game of individuals, so head to head comparisons have to take into account team production when a player is on the court vs. when a player is on the bench.

    And I’d also add you want your role players to be great in one dimension. To have a sharp shooter come off the bench is a huge benefit to any college team. Mills wins this debate and it’s not even close if you know what data to really look at.



  34. nashvillecatsfan
    9:30 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Michael Porter played 1,427 minutes over his career while Mills played 799. This would explain the differences in rebounds, assists, and steals much better than saying that Porter was a better overall player. He played more minutes because he played on less talented teams. This gave him more opportunity to accumulate statistics (even points). Porter also had 141 turnovers to Mills’ 47. I wonder why that wasn’t mentioned.



  35. BigBlueFan31
    9:30 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    31. It may not be the prettiest, but it works. Violent curls!



  36. HawkeyeTim
    9:32 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Funcity….best insight and commments….



  37. Blue-Tinted Reality
    9:32 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I will never admit it. You can’t make me say it! Cameron, NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    You have to keep in mind, though, that Mills wasn’t the point guard and leader of the team like Porter. Mills was an offensive spark now and then when we needed it. Comparing the two really isn’t fair because they had two completely different rolls on their teams.

    To be more acurate, I would compare the stats per minute instead of per game.



  38. ihatetenn
    9:37 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    And this post is up why?



  39. Doctor Bob
    9:38 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Gators win the SEC….UK will play w/o a bye. DDO sucks. All these topics to discuss and instead it is this silly topic. DENIAL.



  40. Butch
    9:38 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    You suck, just quit



  41. Gringo
    9:38 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Cam Mills is so far ahead of Porter that it’s disrespectful to even think of comparing him to Porter.



  42. Bryan the Intern
    9:39 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    38) I think we pretty much have run out of Jorts posts.



  43. Bigbluecalizone
    9:39 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mike Porter=Sean Sutton. WORD……



  44. nashvillecatsfan
    9:39 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I don’t think anybody misinterprets statistics better than this guy.



  45. Oh well
    9:41 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Micheal Porter very well could be the worst D-1 point guard I’ve ever watched! Was a total liability the entire time he was on the floor!! He couldn’t even handle the ball well which is key for a point! How many times did we watched him get ripped and the other team off to a dunk! Not only that but he was a white point guard who couldn’t shoot a damn gun!! Mills was definately more valuable to his team which is crazy cuz porter started for two seasons! Porter couldn’t have started for most NAIA teams! That’s how terrible the talent was at UK during his time! Mills wasn’t a good overall player, but at least he brought something to the table which is more than I can say bout Porter!! Period!



  46. Musehobo
    9:42 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Someone mentioned this earlier….Porter 141 TO’s in 3 seasons, but the comparison is this…Cameron Mills 47 in 4 seasons. How’s that for stats BTI? If you had honestly watched these two guys play you’d understand the difference between them. One player made his team better, one player made his team worse. Isn’t that what it’s about anyway. There are some things that stats can’t show, and if I had to think of the ideal example of that, it would be Porter and Mills.

    And here you go anyway BTI…you suck…and yes, you should quit.



  47. CatsfaninFL
    9:42 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    23) Scroll down some… it was a post last night.



  48. Burly
    9:42 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Just a horrible take by BTI…Mills was a better player…just played less minutes. Porter was a better athlete but did nothing particularly well. Mills could at least shoot the ball. I remember his 30pt game against UF at Rupp…I do not remember Porters 30 point game.



  49. Oh BTI
    9:43 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI, completely agree with you on the point, however the numbers game you are trying to play with three years versus four doesn’t matter because even over those four years of Mills, he still played in 6 less games than Porter did and scored far more points. I agree with you that Porter is better overall, however it is all the intangible things such as ball handling or defense that numbers won’t necessarily show. Please just stop with the numbers thing BTI. And I do appologize for all the crap you get. But every once in a while, it is deserved.



  50. KB7
    9:44 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Here’s the difference. Cameron Mills was a role player on great teams and his numbers reflect that. Mike Porter was supposed to be a role player during his years at UK, but because of Tubby and Billy G he was forced into a more prominent role and his numbers reflect that. Porter was a decent player, who came to UK at an inconvenient time (especially for him). Mills was a player that was able fill the role he was recruited for. Both were affected significantly by the talent around them.



  51. Oh well
    9:45 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    People who base their opinions strictly based off stats is a complete tool that has obviously never played organized ball!



  52. daddyboy
    9:46 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    The difference
    #1 Mills was a KY boy
    #2 Porter wasnt
    #3 Clutch shot vs Duke matters (but not as much as #1)
    #4 Mills came with lower expectations (remember Porter was so great that he turned down BCS Football teams)



  53. Al's IndiCats
    9:46 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Porter was here because of a favor Tubby granted to his parents. I’ll agree that while he was at UK he was never embraced….EVER! But you can blame Clyde for that. He ran Derrick Jasper off, so that left us Porter, who from the get go, everyone knew he was way over his head at the point.
    Mills on the other hand was brought in at UK to be the token Kentuckian on the team. I can’t ever remember him bringing the ball up two times in a row in a game, and his role on the team is the same as all walk-ons. But he was true with his shot in his jr. and sr. years. Where Porter didn’t know if he was going to Lauded for his play, or kicked off the bus, dinning area, or shoved into a restroom stall.
    Brian, normally you have good reads, but on this one I feel you’re just damn mean this morning.

    P.S. Saul was just a waste of a scholly at UK, as I’ve said many times because Tubby brought in his son we lost out on a VERY good PG from Indy. Jason Gardner, WHO was not going to ride the pine because of the coaches son, who (Saul) at his very best would’ve been a decent PG at WKU.



  54. The Fake BTI
    9:46 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Let me show you guys why, statistically speaking of course, Bryan the Intern is a better blogger than Bomani Jones – FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF KSR.COM.

    If you look back over the past, say, two years of KSR history, BTI has posted every. single. day. on the website. Let me show you the stats.

    Monday:
    BTI posts: 1
    Bomani Jones posts: 0

    Tuesday:
    BTI posts: 1
    Bomani Jones: 0

    Wednesday:
    BTI posts: 1
    Bomani Jones: 0

    THIS TREND GOES ON! In the entire month of January, Bomani Jones only posted ONCE!!! BTI posted like 18 times in the same day in January. That’s crazy.

    I realize your comments are going to say, “Ohhhh whatever, Fake BTI. You’re an idiot.” or “Who gave this guy a computer?!” or even, “OMG FAKE BTI U R NOT A UK FANNNN” But look at the stats — everyone knows quantity over quality is the definition of a solid anything in this life.



  55. The Fake Fake Gimel Martinez
    9:47 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI, your inability to recognize context is baffling. Day after day, you post idiotic arguments where statistics are taken out of context and obviously skewed to match your “point”. Cameron Mills played his role on the team much better than Michael Porter did. It doesn’t even take any statistics to recognize this obvious fact.



  56. wrong again
    9:48 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    It depends on what the argument actually is. Is it “Who is the best overall player” – “Who gave the best individual performances?” – “Who brought more to their team?” …..
    I think without having equal coaches, we’ll never know.

    Mills certainly brought more to his team. Why? Because he filled his role. He did what he was supposed to do, and he happened to be very good at it. Porter was not allowed to fill his role, he was forced by a lack of recruiting to play a position he had no business playing – and he played it poorly.

    Mills brought shots – big ones. Porter brought missed layups and crucial turnovers.

    If you let them play 1v1, Porter probably wins. But who cares?

    Bottom line is Mills was allowed to do what he was good at, Porter was not. As unfair as it may be, there’s no question who brought more to the program.



  57. BIGBLUEDAVE
    9:48 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    How about mention the fact that if Porter had been a member on those teams Cameron Mills was on, that Porter would never have gotten off the bench. And let’s also mention that if Mills had played on those Billy G teams, he would have been a starter, and would have drastically different numbers.



  58. JB95Jeep
    9:50 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I have never understood why people think Cameron Mills was a good player except for the fact that he hit that shot against Duke. Play it over 9 more times and he bricks it. That shot made the Cameron Mills that people remember today. Without it, he would just be a local boy that got to sit on the KY bench for 4 years. Michael Porter was not a fan favorite because the teams he played on sucked, but he was a much better player than Cameron Mills.



  59. Beatle Bum
    9:50 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Not really into this sort of thing, but if you are going to compare three seasons with three seasons, I think you should add a comparison of minutes played during that time frame.



  60. knightynight
    9:50 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Who contributed more to America.

    Bob Marley or Bob Dylan



  61. Bryan the Intern
    9:52 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    60) I say Michael Porter contributed more to America than all of them. Haha.



  62. bung
    9:53 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Jared Carter had 24 pts 10 reb for Rochester last game



  63. hey ya
    9:56 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Is BTI actually Colin Cowherd?



  64. KB7
    9:56 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    This is NOT the University of Mike Porter or Cameron Mills, so I think we’re wasting out time here!!!



  65. nashvillecatsfan
    9:57 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    47% 3 pt. shooter vs. 35%

    I think everyone can guess which percentage belongs to which player. Porter wouldn’t have gotten off the bench on the teams that Mills played on. Mills got some minutes on those teams because he could shoot.



  66. Bryan the Intern
    9:57 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I gotta be honest everybody, I am taking large amounts of a drug. A drug called Charlie Sheen.



  67. J hood
    9:59 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    totally agree with your post intern…people will say you suck!



  68. Cat89
    10:00 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    “But, there is more to the game than shooting.” A players value to a team or program is also far greater than mear stats.
    I was never nervous or scard when Mills was on the floor. Porter, not so much but I agree he was asked to do far more
    than Cameron. Very proud and happy they were both Cats. I disagree! Cameron’s “career”, “value” has certainly NOT been misrepresented over the years.



  69. willis
    10:00 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI….please leave. Your posts are atrocious and irrelevant to anything. From here on, you get the Actual Jerry Tipton treatment, as in never read another word you write.



  70. yesterdays
    10:01 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Both these guys were role players. Porter didnt really do anything well. Mills provided shooting when needed and he understood this. Porter, on the other hand, must hold the record for missed lay-ups and consecutive seconds while dribbling sideways. Mills provided a specific skill set to his teams. Porter as a shooting guard??? If thats the skill he was supposed to provide…..



  71. Kanter Banter
    10:03 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mills was a set shot only. Shepard was the heart and soul of the 1998 time by far. If Shepard doesn’t get hot during the last month of 1998 we don’t win. As teams collapsed on Naz and Magolre, Mills was able to get wide open looks. Padget also was hot during the last month.

    Frankly, I don’t really care for Camron. He is a cheap bible thumper that profits well from his time at UK. His father is a thief as well. So BTI you should do your homework.



  72. big grizz
    10:04 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Porter played major minutes in his time at UK… Mills was on a roster full of talented players that limited his playing time. I once saw Michael Porter fake being hurt because he wanted to come out of a game against South Carolina because he was getting abused by Devan Downey… What Mills brought to UK was far greater than anything Michael Porter did. I am a Michael Porter fan but Cam Mill is a legend.



  73. _Blackhawk_
    10:05 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    NUMBERS DEFENDED HERE!

    Ok so we can’t go an apple to apples comparison of the teams nor the numbers at face value since Porter almost doubled Mills in total time played. With that in mind let’s compare their production per 10 minutes of playing time.

    Based on per 10 minutes production here is what you get;
    Mills – 4.68pts, 1.2 rbs, .72assists and .35 steals
    Porter- 1.70pts, .80rbs, .99assists and .39 steals

    In other words had Mills played the same number of minutes as Porter, with his averages Mills would have had a career line of
    656pts, 171rebounds, 102 assists and 49 steals

    Given Mills exceptional post season play a fool would have to pick Porter over Mills.



  74. Musehobo
    10:06 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI is the Jerry Tipton to KSR.



  75. UK_Football_Fan
    10:06 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    You are leaving out something critically important. Porter played more minutes his last year (847) than Mills did (799) his entire career. Porter’s total career minutes? 1427. So comparing raw numbers for points, assists, rebounds and steals isn’t a great measure for who was “better”. If you adjust for minutes, the only thing Porter did appreciably better was dish out assists. Of course, he played the point and Mills didn’t.
    So, maybe in a raw sense you could argue that Porter was more productive. But that is about it. Of course, the discrepancy in minutes is explained by the talent level that surrounded them, and not anything about their skills. I doubt Porter would have seen the floor in 96-97 or 97-98.
    Finally, I’d argue that in a pickup game, Mills gets picked first every time. His singular skill (DOC shooting) was way more important than anything Porter brought to the table.



  76. Bryan the Intern
    10:07 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    73) Well, then you are calling Matt a fool too. Because he is where this argument started. I didn’t just make it up.



  77. kybigblue
    10:07 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Instead of a stupid debate over who was the better player let’s just say that both players were role players and gave it their all. Both players were good representatives of UK on and off the court. I wish them only the best.



  78. Mr Schwump
    10:10 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Good lord, is this all you have to do? Mills, not even close.



  79. stupid post
    10:13 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    oh my lord you have officially lost your mind. and i only read the part in bold that said porter was better. he was freakin horrible, and is the face of one of the worst UK years ever



  80. stupid post
    10:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    he was our point guard and he couldn’t dribble!!!!!!!!



  81. Bryan the Intern
    10:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    79) Has Matt lost his mind?



  82. WTH
    10:16 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Who cares? They were both below average UK players who filled a role and whose time has passed. Was this the best you could do to fill this space?



  83. Blue-Tinted Reality
    10:21 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    81. ANYONE who says Porter was better than Mills has lost their mind. So please stop repeating yourself and pretending you’re BTI.



  84. RondoPlease
    10:23 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    ahh the elation of Jorts Day is over and we’re back to we’re back to the familiar routine of BTI making everyone hate KSR for one hour each day. sigh….



  85. mjj2k+
    10:30 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    What’s next, Saul Smith was better than Rajon Rondo? I mean, Saul had 79 more assists than Rondo at UK.

    #73 and #75 have this nailed.

    In Michael Porter’s first two seasons, in 580 combined minutes, he scored 94 points.

    Cameron Mills scored 71 points in the 1997 NCAA Tournnament. That means he averaged 11.7 ppg for a 6 game stretch in high pressure games against the best competition the NCAA offers. He also hit clutch shots in the 98 NCAA’s against Duke and Utah. Michael Porter played a lot of minutes on the worst UK team in the last 20 years, mainly because his coach was psychotic. I’m sure he was a great person, but his presence on the floor as a player was an enormous negative, whereas Mills’s presence was a positive, and was so for great, great teams.



  86. Runnin'Ramel
    10:31 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mike Porter led UK into Assembly Hall and came out with a loss. That hurts my heart.



  87. Dan
    10:35 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I’m not sure but my gut tells me that Mills had far less minutes in 3 seasons than Porter did. So your comparison may not be valid. I think Mills would have been more valuable to the team that Porter was on. Porter was a Larry Drew an a poor UK team.



  88. Need more stats
    10:38 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI you MUST include turnovers in your analysis. Don’t ignore that. Can’t wait for part 2 of the debate.

    Cameron was a great role player he hit the threes when we needed them. Thats about it. He came back on toward the end of the 98 season and went out on a good note.

    Porter was probably a decent player but a bad point guard on a bad team. He was overmatched and exposed by the other point guards in the league. Some nights they continuously stole the ball from him. Sit him down and Liggins came in and was just as turnover prone.
    I don’t know who was better but WINNING makes a big difference in perceptions.



  89. gocats123
    10:38 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Hey BTI,
    You can’t really compare the 2. They played different roles on two totally different teams. Also even the Porter only played 3 seasons he played in 90 games compared to Mills 84. The numbers are difficult to interpret because again they roles were different. I watched both play and feel that if Mills tried to be the point guard Porter was he probably would be remembered much different, because I dont think he could do it. If Porter had a chance to set back and shoot a 3 to win against Duke maybe we would remember him differently as well. But afterall they are both former and forever CATS! and they will be remembered fondly..



  90. UK Fan in VA
    10:39 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    At least Mills had a role he could excel at – shooting the basketball. Porter had no area of excellency, nothing really even remotely close. Better to be exceptional at somthing and have that to bring to the table. I can’t think of one thing Porter did well. He was a point guard who passed with mediocrity,shot poorly and had trouble getting the ball up the floor.



  91. Need more stats
    10:41 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Thank You #85 Mills was my favorite player on that 97 team.
    He wasnt as great in his senior year but hit some big shot and dropped 30something on Florida.
    I wish Porters career went better.



  92. UK_Football_Fan
    10:44 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Here is a debate I wouldn’t mind seeing, Porter v. Saul Smith.



  93. TimPRP
    10:46 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    88- There wont be a part 2. (What an awful take) And Im sure Matt realizes it was an awful take when he said it. He didnt sound convinced when I brought it up on the show. Sounded like he just wanted it to go away. Then BTI writes this .haha.



  94. Roofus Howls
    10:48 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mills was a walk-on for part of his career.

    Mills spent time with Nazr on the JV team and thus wasn’t eligible to be a victory cigar in many 1996 games.

    I saw Mill score 31 (or so) against Florida in Rupp.



  95. YeahDude
    10:49 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Who cares.. yay we’ve proven that they both blew..

  96. Like many have said, who really cares?

    If Porter had ever had the opportunity, and had made a big March Madness shot like the one Mills made, he’d be a hero too. Don’t forget that the shot is so legendary not only because we won it all that year, but because: 1) it was vs. the hated DUKIES, 2) it was made during that unbelievable comeback. If it had not been made against a team that UK fans hate as much as Duke, it might not be considered quite as legendary as it is.

    As Oscar Combs used to say, “‘Nuff said.”.



  97. CalifCatFan
    10:51 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Good grief, BTI, once again you have managed to upset half of BBN. Mills was better than Porter. Period.



  98. Bruce Pearl
    10:52 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Will you play them both on Sunday, PLEASE!



  99. Sylvar
    11:04 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Here is the only flaw I see in what you just said…No way Mills is the most loved player on that team. My personal list had 4 players in front of him on that team, but the first two are probably widely accepted: Sheppard and Padgett.



  100. bald
    11:05 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I’ve met Mills three times, 2 of those at church events, and all three he saw himself better than anyone else…arrogant doesn’t even come close to describe him; its much worse than that. Porter gets my vote, its not even close.



  101. Rockfield, KY
    11:06 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI, I think you should compare the two by looking at minutes played, rather than games played. Porter played because there were no other good options, and Mills played because he had a special skill set for certain defenses and certain situational needs. I don’t honestly know if Mills would even be compared to Porter if he were forced into playing the minutes that Porter played. I really liked Porter, but more for his hustle and less for his game.



  102. bluegrass79
    11:15 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Michael POrter couldnt hold Cameron Mills jock strap. Cameron BIG BLUE NATION remembers you shooting us to the championship. Mills is welcome on ANY Uk team. Mills > Porter ALL DAY EVERYDAY



  103. Joe
    11:16 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading your post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    This might be the most awful misuse of statistics ever.

    Here’s a countermeasure of your ridiculous use of numbers–

    UK’s record in games that Mills played in for his first three years– 43-3 (93.5% winning percentage)
    UK’s record in games that Porter played in for his three years– 57-34 (62.6% winning percentage)

    In the first two years of his UK career, Mills played a total of 48 minutes. He wasn’t a bad player– he scored 16 points, had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, only one turnover, and was 5 for 12 from the field. He just didn’t play, because of the talent in front of him.

    In the first two years of his UK career, Porter played a total of 580 minutes, more than 12 times the number of minutes that Mills got– mostly because his teams sucked. He scored a total of 94 points, and did it by shooting 33% from the field, and he had 51 assists to 61 turnovers. He sucked when he did play.

    In his junior year, due to the injury to Anderson, Mills got to play halfway through the year. After Anderson’s injury, in the remaining 22 games of the year, Mills averaged 7.6 points per game, despite playing about 12 minutes per game. The guy shot over 50% from three, and was a freaking Microwave. Put him in the game, you got points. He averaged 12 points per game in the SEC tournament, which his team won, and averaged 12 points per game in the NCAA tournament, in which his team went to the finals.

    As a junior, Porter played 24 minutes per game. He scored 4.1 points per game, and did it with 36% shooting. He tied for the team lead in assists, but was also second on the team in turnovers. He had two games in three seasons in which he scored in double figures– while Mills was averaging double figures in the SEC and NCAA tournaments as a junior.

    I also don’t understand how you can claim to just wipe Mills’s senior season, for comparison’s sake. Mills didn’t have a great senior season, but he was still there, and he did, as you note, hit at least one big shot.

    Anyway, yes, Porter undoubtedly played hard. Who doesn’t? For a college scholarship, I would’ve played hard. Wouldn’t have looked much different than Michael Porter.

    And yes, Mills was not Larry Bird out there. He was a role player who played on some great teams. But being a role player cuts both ways– Mills never consistently got the minutes that Porter got, and when he did (see 1997 postseason) he played like a star.



  104. bluegrass79
    11:16 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    PERIOD. END OF STORY



  105. Chris C.
    11:18 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Yeah, wow. Dumb story challenging people to refute the numbers when MINUTES were not taken into account.



  106. Blipz24
    11:20 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    First of all, #7…system? When did having a system become credible in sports? It’s a play book or maybe a style of play. But system? Clearly, sports is the one entertainment field where absolutely no one has to be original. How about “running in space,” or “spurtability?”

    Anyway, we’re missing one key point. Cameron did not have to listen to all of the complaining that Michael did. Wonder how many eating disorders all of those Kentucky fans would have that talked about Michael when he played, if they were treated the way he was.



  107. 2020
    11:30 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI, did you ever think of something like shooting % and assist-turnover ratio? Once again, you’re trying to be all scientific but looking at the wrong numbers. Is this how Cal determines who he’s going to recruit?



  108. JBR
    11:33 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    You guys are correct…Mills was hugely overrated, and Porter was a much better player than Mills anyday, anywhere. What Mills gave to UK was essentially what 100,000 short, while YMCA warriors would give…he was a white kid that could shoot the ball, period…he had nothing else. Just because he was from Kentucky does not mean he was white jesus.



  109. Willie and Waylon
    11:36 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Show me some “points per minutes played” stats, and then we’ll talk. Until then, Cameron 3 (final fours), Porter ZERO.



  110. Mike
    11:39 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    To say the numbers don’t lie is just idiotic. Everyone knows that stats and numbers can be manipulated in all kinds of ways, hence the saying “there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Furthermore, you don’t take into account at all that Porter got tons of playing time on a bad team, minutes that he would never have gotten playing on the teams that Mills played on. If you play a kid enough minutes simply because you have no other alternative, that kid is gonna get some stats over the course of a few seasons. I don’t mind someone being of the opinion that Porter was a better overall player than Mills, but I certainly have a problem with you acting like your opinion is some kind of irrefutable fact thats totally backed up by the numbers. For one, I never believe that numbers tell the whole story, but even worse than that is that you used the WRONG numbers. Like others have said, how do you not take minutes into account? How do you not take into account that, by default, Porter played a ton of minutes in his final season? If he had been coming off the bench sparingly like he would have on almost any other UK team, his stats wouldn’t be anywhere near what they turned out to be. Just an overall terrible topic and terrible post on an otherwise great day. Stick to the stuff that people actually give a damn about.



  111. stupid post
    11:40 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    81) yes. a point guard that can’t driblle < a spot shooting guard that is lights out. it was painful to watch porter try and play basketball



  112. leedurhamstone
    11:49 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Minor point of grammar, BTI: If objects can be counted, use the word “fewer,” as in “fewer points.” Uncountable quantities use “less,” as in “less hustle.”



  113. Doctor Bob
    11:50 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    How many Final Fours has UK been in since Tubby left? How many has UF been in since 1998?

    Your tradition has been exposed as a hoax. Think about point shaving and gambling on games.



  114. BehindTheNumbers
    11:56 am March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Percentages: Cameron Mills is second to our current Doron Lamb in 3pt % of his career. Percentages equal efficiency. Mills was a better role player, especially when you shoot 47.4% from beyond the arc for your career.



  115. Tom Blevins
    12:03 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Both Michael Porter and Cameron Mills deserve our admiration. Which of them was the better player? Set up a one-on-one between the two of them and you might find out who is the better player NOW, but that wouldn’t tell you who was the best while he played here at Kentucky. I can name a good number of Kentucky players who were far more talented than either of them. I’ll just say that so far as I know they both worked hard and did their best for the time they played. I’m content to leave it at that.



  116. Escape Goat
    12:17 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mills was a great shooter, but just from observation, I think its true that Porter was probably more athletic and had a slightly better skill set overall.

    People remember Mills as better than he actually was, and people remember Porter as a worse player than he actually was. He was definitely out of his league at UK, but he wasn’t the most frustrating player during the Gillispie years for me. People just remember the embarrassing plays that Porter had, and forget the games where he wasn’t that bad.

    Meeks, despite all the points he scored, frustrated me to no end. Turnovers, below par defensively, would rarely pass out of double teams, etc…. But that 54 against Tennessee was nice.



  117. Emmert still sucks
    12:31 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I tried to pull for Porter, I really did, cuz he was wearing the blue and white…but he was painful to watch and I actually felt sorry for and pity for him most of the time. I agree with the earlier comment that at times, he did not want to be out there and he was just out-matched 99.9% of the time.

    That being said, he can say something that most of us will never be able to…that he wore the KENTUCKY uniform. I hope he is well and having a nice life.



  118. AtomicDawg02
    12:40 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Mills played on much more talented teams, plain and simple. Had Porter played on the same teams he would have never seen the floor. He would have sat behind Wayne Turner, Anthony Epps and *gasp* Saul Smith among others. Mills had garbage time until his senior year. Mills was a true SG whose job was to make 3’s and stretch the defense. Porter played a bigger role because there was less talent around him and he was the only true PG on the team. I like both players, but you’re essentially comparing a point guard vs a shooting guard on two very different teams.



  119. UKNortherner
    12:50 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Porter would win one on one because he can handle the ball better, faster, and guard better. Those are about the only two things he has over Mills. Winning one on one means little in basketball.
    Porter played during the Gillespie era and that reflects poorly on his team and his career. He played around less talented players than Mills did and played a different role than what Mills had to play.
    Mills was a shooter, period. He was not asked to bring the ball up the court or manage the team on the court. He was asked to hit clutch shots and he did.
    These two players were ones that everyone always tried to pull for, just so happens Mills had better luck with teammates and coaches and than Porter. Depending on what you need a player for changes my answer but if you ask me who I would take overall I would say Mills all day.



  120. HOSS CAT
    12:54 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    __

    You’re horrible BTI. Obviously Mills has done something to tick you and jones off. Porter should’ve never worn a UK jersey. HE SUCKS!!!!!!!! Mills is way better than porter. I can’t believe you’d mention them in the same sentence. I could see you comparing him to Jared Carter.



  121. coop2thahoop
    1:29 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Dumbest debate ever..



  122. Anthonyeppsdrivingschool
    1:31 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    To say Michael Porter was better than Mills is asinine. If Michael Porter was put on the UK teams Mills played for, Porter would serve the role as Olivar Simmons EVERY YEAR. It’s a freaking joke to say that Cameron Mills, who quite possibly hit the biggest shot for UK in the past 20 years is not better than Mills. BTI, I hope you take a week off and come up with something at 9 am Monday morning, where you have an entire weekend to actually come up with something interesting.



  123. Anthonyeppsdrivingschool
    1:31 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    *not better than porter.



  124. Mike
    1:40 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    So let me get this straight BTI, now your hiding behind Matt Jones? Either stand by your opinion or admit that you were wrong. I realize you may find this hard to believe, but not everyone that comes on KSR worships at the alter of Matt Jones, its not like everyone is gonna change their mind and agree with you because they found out that Matt agrees with you. If Matt thinks that Porter was better than Cameron Mills, then I have no problem saying that Matt is just as wrong on this one as you are. Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to just assume that everyone that disagrees with you does so out of emotion. I myself didn’t particularly care for either Mills or Porter, and I have no problem saying that there have been many players, even some I did not like, that were far better basketball players than Cameron Mills, but Michael Porter was not one of them, and I would be surprised if some of the production per minute stats wouldn’t show that to be the case. Regardless though, you can never truly evaluate a player based solely on the numbers.



  125. indiana uk fan
    1:40 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    porter wasnt even close kentucky went into the final four with mills the leading scorer on the team in the tournament.mills might be the best shooter i ever seen!!



  126. bigcat76
    1:43 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    How about comparing each players best year, I’m guessing that would look VASTLY different, or just use whatever stats help to make your argument. Foreshadowing the outcome by saying “I know all the commenter are going to say….,” is cheap at the end no matter the outcome you can say told you so.



  127. DOC
    2:05 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    BTI again ur an idiot.. mills more beloved then anybody on 98 team? Shepard, Turner, Padgett… come on.. Get BTI off KSR nobody want him to write anymore



  128. BleedsBlueMC
    2:06 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I saw Mills signing autographs in the Lexington Center before the game last night.

    I think I saw Porter in line.

    Enough Said.



  129. Stack30
    2:15 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    You know, I could really care less about this argument b/c neither were very good. However, you cant just say well Mills did this (blah blah blah) in 4 seasons and Porter in only 3 seasons. That is irrelevant b/c porter actually played more games than mills. So, with that said, you are being deceiving by saying that b/c it makes it sound like Mills played more and a lot more than Porter. Which is 100% false. So, BTI..that is y ppl hate you b/c you twist things around. I still love ya tho!



  130. UK MD
    2:25 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Cameron did have 9% of his career points in one game (31 vs Florida).

    Porter would’ve won 2 titles with UK in the 90’s, Helen Keller would have. We were that good. I feel bad for Porter. He’s so unloved. He wasn’t that bad. Just like George W Bush, he gets a terrible rap.



  131. Will
    2:27 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    Cameron Mills…during one of his “sermons” or whatever took off his championship ring and threw it across the floor (someone picked it up for him of course) and said “this doesn’t matter and I don’t care about it”. And then went into God is great thing. I don’t knock religion but REALLY??? I’ve known personally a half dozen people who have met Mills and they all said he’s an azzhole.



  132. _Blackhawk_
    2:32 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    #76-yes ANYONE that thinks that is a fool. Matt or you it doesn’t matter. I wasnt calling you out. I read your post I understood who started it. Mills did far more in the 98 NCAA’s than Porter ever did.



  133. 3angelsmessage
    2:35 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I am not a BTI hater. I actually like a lot of his post. However, the whole time I was reading this I was thinking, what’s the use? Why write such a piece when you know you will get hammered. I actually am upset about it, because he has opened up the door for fans to hammer a guy that actually presented himself well and was a credit to the program while he was here. He was not a UK level point guard and we all know that. He wasn’t recruited to be. However he did what the coaching staff asked of him. How many of you would turn down the chance to play for UK? How many of you would tell the coach, “no, I don’t wanna start, i’m just a sub caliber guy”. Before his junior year he was shooting 300 3 point shots a day because he was told Liggins was coming in to run the point. He spent his whole summer practicing the skills for the position he thought he would be playing.

    While I think it’s ok to critique a players game, it is horrendous to call him names and bash him to no end. If Porter had been on more talented teams he would have been cheered wildly as a scrub that seldom seen the floor, but because the coaches didn’t do their job he was force3d into a starting role and is bashed for it. Some days it makes me ill to be a part of a fan base that bashes an athlete that gave what he could and stayed out of trouble and yet makes every excuse for players of far less morals but with more skill.



  134. Hill Jack
    3:20 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    What a bunch of drivel. Your theory seems sound enough accept when you consider whom Mills and Porter were stealing there minutes from.

    Cameron Mills got his minutes and his points playing behind, Toine, Turner, Delk, Anderson, Mercer, Epps, Mohammed, and Pricket, Padgett, Magloire, McCarty, Shepherd, Evans, and Pope.

    Michael Porter got his minutes playing behind stalwarts like Bobby Perry, Hip Hip Sheray, Dereck Jasper, WOO, Perry Stevenson, AJ. Stewart, Ramone Harris, Jared Carter, and Mark Coury. Bradley, Crawford, Meeks, and Patterson are the only four Porter ever played with that could have broken into the 95-06 lineup.

    Bottom Line, you put Porter on any of the teams from 95-97 and you might as well change his name to Masiello or Simmons.



  135. scwildcat
    5:57 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    One of the more asinine arguments ever posted on ksr. You can’t compare stats in a vaccum when comparing these two individuals, you have to account for opportunity & impact as well. What were their respective points/40 min? Turnovers /40min? Assists? – Mills role was a spot up shooter, Porter was allegedly a lead guard. Under no circumstance should Porter have even been allowed to put on a UK jersey much less be a starter … Mills could be a contributor on nearly every UK team throughout history. Porter may have been marfinally better in some aspects but not enough to make gin more valuable.



  136. jesco white
    6:13 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    In the tourny in 97, up until the Final 4, Mills was shooting close to 80% in the tournament. BTI you are bad. I wonder if this is on purpose.



  137. jesco white
    6:15 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    odd 133. I know a guy who said he nearly cried at one of his seromons. He is a UL fan though.



  138. YOU SUCK
    6:51 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    minutes played? dick.



  139. Chris
    6:59 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    you suck, just quit.



  140. E Cat
    9:17 pm March 2, 2011 Permalink

    I’m not sold that Porter, if placed on the UK teams Mills played on, would have knocked down those BIG TIME shots Cam did.

    People act like just anyone could have buried those clutch jumpers like Cameron did. How many “the next Cameron Mills” have we had: Josh Carrier, Ryan Hogan, Todd Tackett, Adam Williams, etc. And none ever came close.

    And if Porter was recruited as a two-guard, that was an even worse decision than recruiting him as a point guard. He was only about 6-2. Tubby recruited him for two reasons: 1) They were trying to get his teammate (who went to Washington); 2) and Tubby was friends with his father, who had coached Chuck Hayes.

    Porter just got forced into a bad situation when he was forced to start. If he’d played 5 minutes a game, that would have been about right.