alt.sports.college.sec.kentucky

On Oct 22, 5:09 pm, King Ghidora wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:18:26 -0000, p.clar...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> :I think Tayshaun Prince should get on the list, or at least some kind
> :of mention. Everybody is seeing what Prince is capable of in his
> :current NBA career. He was an underachiever at UK that showed flashed
> :of Jordan-like brilliance.
>
> I think Prince should have been on the list if he hadn't
> been restricted by such a bad coach. For any other UK coach
> he would have been the star he is now. But not for that
> other coach. Read the comments about Azubuike. Sorta has a
> familar ring to it doesn't it. Smith is such a pathetic
> coach he ruined the careers of a lot of talented players.
> Prince got his chance to shine under good coaching. But not
> at UK. I think we should look at what players did at UK to
> determine if they should be on that list. And Prince didn't
> do that well in college and I blame it ALL on the coach. No
> doubt Prince could have made that list and if we looked at
> the most talented players to have every played at UK he
> might well be on that list but I thought the list was about
> the best players that played at UK. I think Chapman would
> have to be considered if we looked at the sheer talent. And
> Antoine not being there is still a huye mystery to me
> because he was a key player in a title year. Go figure.
> It's SI. We can't expect much from them.

OK, here's the SI criteria...

They said that only one of UK's title teams was built around one
superstar('51...Spivey). The other teams were deep with talent, the
stars had to share the ball and sacrifice the stats. They say
versatility was a major factor in picking the top 15. In their words:
"The Cats who had the ability to play different positions and excelled
in more than one area of the game were ranked higher."