Whats killing NCAAB?

[Todd23]

The college game is not as good as it once was from a fan standpoint because there is a lack of familiarity. Every year the rosters of the best teams completey turn over. As a fan, you have to spend a lot of time educating yourself on each team every year.

I have gravitated more to the NBA in recent years, and part of that is because I know five, six, seven or more players on each of the marquee teams, which makes it more interesting to watch. I only have to educate myself on a handful of changes each year, compared to wholesale changes at the college level.

 

[tentoesin]

Hi,
This is a great thread and I would guess it is being repeated on all "major" D1 team's boards and has been for a few years. I know this has been discussed on our board (UConn). The "One and Done" phenomenon is due to the NBA players association rule starting in 2006 I think that requires entrants to its draft to be at least 19 years old during the draft’s calendar year and one NBA season to have elapsed since the player graduated from high school. I think the reason they are doing this is because the older players don't want to get pushed out of the league by the newer players. The NBA franchises like most businesses are looking for the next big thing, the next big mover and shaker, who they think will immediately change their fortunes. The players association counters this by not allowing kids to play. The NCAA I don't believe has any say in this process. For us college basketball fans it means we lose our players early and don't get to see our players grow up in our systems like you guys got to do with Derrick Coleman for example and like we did with Cliff Robinson.
Somehow Kentucky and lately Duke seem to have cornered the market on most of the 5 star kids who this rule might apply to. But I'm not sure it is actually ruining college basketball. It is changing the power balance however as we have all seen in that these teams can rack up great regular season records and get high seeds in the tournament. I think that high school kids who are old enough to actually work in their states should be able to play professionally whenever they want. This would stem the one and done tide to an extent. Think of how many kids Kentucky has gotten for a year that would have gone straight to the league if they could. Calipari can't coach for s__t anyway and if he didn't have that advantage I doubt his record would be as good as it is. As much as I dislike Duke, at least Coach K is actually a really good coach.
Since 2006, I believe only two teams have won National Championships with one and done players; Kentucky in 2012 (3) and Duke in 2015 (3). I could be wrong and I'm sure you'll tell me if I am! The reason for this I think is that experienced teams who actually play together for multiple years have a better shot of winning. Examples include Villanova this year and UConn in 2014 and both Florida Championships among others. So I think programs like Syracuse, UConn, Nova, Wisconsin, Indiana etc. need to look at recruiting differently. Of course you take the 5 star one and one player if you can get them, but build your team with 4 star kids who are likely to stay more than one year, develop and hopefully build an experienced team that also has talent so that you can make the tournament and hopefully make a deep run and maybe win a championship. Your run this year to the Final Four is a great example. Even though Richardson is going in the draft he wasn't really a "one and done" player. Your team won and advanced with experience and great team defense and getting hot at the right time. Given a few different bounces of the ball and a little more depth you might have pulled it off.
Since it isn't up to the NCAA or us as NCAA fans, it is up to the NBA players association as to what the rule is. Our programs need to find a way to recruit around this and build our programs to succeed with experience and talent rather than just young talent alone.

 

[OttoMets]

Officiating plays a role.

Too much physicality is allowed, and so many violations are ignored that a significant number of calls made are arbitrary and disruptive to flow.

Early entrants and underskilled players also make the college game worse, and I think an argument can be made that the micromanagement of the game by an increasing number of coaches is both a response to this problem and a contributor to the problem. The 30-second shot clock is a baby step toward mitigating the micromanagement problem.

 

[Newhouser]

Officiating plays a role.

Too much physicality is allowed, and so many violations are ignored that a significant number of calls made are arbitrary and disruptive to flow.

Early entrants and underskilled players also make the college game worse, and I think an argument can be made that the micromanagement of the game by an increasing number of coaches is both a response to this problem and a contributor to the problem. The 30-second shot clock is a baby step toward mitigating the micromanagement problem.

The coaches have become the stars and the faces of the programs, and are too controlling. Micromanagement is an excellent description.

 

[Knicks411]

When people say the one and done is killing college basketball, how exactly do they mean it? And what does it mean that college basketball is being killed?

Not a troll question. I have plenty of issues with the college game, but more to do with the officiating and pace of the games, which was improved last year with the shorter shot clock.

 

[Cowtown]

Personally, I don't think the players are more skilled - they are just much more athletic. It used to be that players were recruited based on their developed skills plus career stats and competition not on the athletic potential based on "measurables" like jumping ability, wing span, reach, stride length etc with the hope to develop the needed basketball skills/IQ in the future. The only time in the "golden oldie" days recruiting based on potential seemed to be restricted for exceptionally tall guys because "you can't teach height".(JB taking the gamble with Rony Seikaly) I knew of kids who didn't make their high school basketball team because they couldn't dribble down the court using both hands around cones then make off hand layups. Now I see college players who can't use both hands to dribble, shoot, pass, etc. Today an NBA team would probably take a chance on a Rony Seikaly immediately or at least after a year, just based on his athleticism.

The advances in S&C training etc seems to have changed the emphasis. Many high school kids spend time in strength and conditioning facilities with other sport's athletes just to increase jump height, speed, reaction time, stride, strength etc, thus the "measurables" they think they can improve and control. Sport's facilities to develop pure general athleticism apart from basketball skills weren't really around back then.

"Hold your cards, ladies and gentlemen, we have a Bingo!"

 

[Cowtown]

Officiating plays a role.

Too much physicality is allowed, and so many violations are ignored that a significant number of calls made are arbitrary and disruptive to flow.

Early entrants and underskilled players also make the college game worse, and I think an argument can be made that the micromanagement of the game by an increasing number of coaches is both a response to this problem and a contributor to the problem. The 30-second shot clock is a baby step toward mitigating the micromanagement problem.

The reason "too much physicality" and violations are allowed/ignored is because the skill level does not meet the athleticism. Nobody wants to come out and watch a whistle-fest that takes 2 1/2 hours to get through. One of the things about officiating that very few understand is that it's necessary to find a way to get through the game, which means you have to find things not to call.

Besides, who has more responsibility in a players development - the coaches who see the players every day for the entire season and more, or the officials who see the same players a handful of time at the outermost?

The officials don't coach, they ref whatever players and the game(s) that show up. For you can get out of the way of a good game and let it flow. But you can't turn a bad game into a good one no matter what. And given the declining level of skill, there are many more of the former than the latter.

Not a shot at you Otto, just me making a point. Your point about early entrants and under-skilled players is correct.

edit: Also the point about the one-and-done is legit, I believe, for it affects the attitude of the player who comes to the college ranks. As in, the draft at the end of the season is now the focal point, rather than the opportunity to a.) play college ball; and b.) improve one's skills. It sort of enhances the "me first" attitude at the expense of the team. That player is trying to get himself drafted more than he's trying to help his team win. The onus to develop lies more with the player than the coaches, because the player is the one who has the most to gain. But that attitude is hardly reflected in players who look over the coach's and roll their eyes when he's talking to them during a T/O, whose body language says "Look at all the I gotta put up with." And we've had a few too many of those.

 

[OttoMets]

The reason "too much physicality" and violations are allowed/ignored is because the skill level does not meet the athleticism. Nobody wants to come out and watch a whistle-fest that takes 2 1/2 hours to get through. One of the things about officiating that very few understand is that it's necessary to find a way to get through the game, which means you have to find things not to call.

Besides, who has more responsibility in a players development - the coaches who see the players every day for the entire season and more, or the officials who see the same players a handful of time at the outermost?

The officials don't coach, they ref whatever players and the game(s) that show up. For you can get out of the way of a good game and let it flow. But you can't turn a bad game into a good one no matter what. And given the declining level of skill, there are many more of the former than the latter.

Not a shot at you Otto, just me making a point. Your point about early entrants and under-skilled players is correct.

edit: Also the point about the one-and-done is legit, I believe, for it affects the attitude of the player who comes to the college ranks. As in, the draft at the end of the season is now the focal point, rather than the opportunity to a.) play college ball; and b.) improve one's skills. It sort of enhances the "me first" attitude at the expense of the team. That player is trying to get himself drafted more than he's trying to help his team win. The onus to develop lies more with the player than the coaches, because the player is the one who has the most to gain. But that attitude is hardly reflected in players who look over the coach's and roll their eyes when he's talking to them during a T/O, whose body language says "Look at all the I gotta put up with." And we've had a few too many of those.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one (but I'd have company in that minority, based on what I hear from hoops friends), but I'd love to watch a bunch of 2.5-hour slopfests in November and December if it meant that the rules were going to be enforced less selectively for the full season. I know the kids would adjust and we'd start watching clean basketball again come conference season: no more Trevor Cooney shuffle, no more football play in the post, no more hands/forearms/hips on the driver, no more free pass for fouling a guy as he makes a dunk.

As much as those Jim Burr and-one anticipation calls were frustrating in the '80s and '90s, at least they reflected some institutional understanding that basketball's not intended to be a physical game. I'd be happy to trend back in that direction, even if we suffered through some 75-foul games during the breaking-in period.

(Note that I'm not including the block/charge on here, though that's got something to do with the deterioration of the game; I have no idea how to fix that one.)

Anyway, it seems that a lot of coaches and the string-pullers at the top of the pyramid disagree with me. "Flow" trumps clean play.

Now, as far as player development goes, I agree that that's a huge culprit and certainly not the officials' responsibility. It'd be nice if high school coaches could teach well-rounded skills to their players without AAU distractions; better still would be a educational system at the college level that prioritized things like "use this hand for a lay-up from the left side" or "use the glass when shooting from this angle" rather than burning up practice time on teaching sophisticated defensive schemes that end up bogging down the game.

 

[Cowtown]

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one (but I'd have company in that minority, based on what I hear from hoops friends), but I'd love to watch a bunch of 2.5-hour slopfests in November and December if it meant that the rules were going to be enforced less selectively for the full season. I know the kids would adjust and we'd start watching clean basketball again come conference season: no more Trevor Cooney shuffle, no more football play in the post, no more hands/forearms/hips on the driver, no more free pass for fouling a guy as he makes a dunk.

As much as those Jim Burr and-one anticipation calls were frustrating in the '80s and '90s, at least they reflected some institutional understanding that basketball's not intended to be a physical game. I'd be happy to trend back in that direction, even if we suffered through some 75-foul games during the breaking-in period.

(Note that I'm not including the block/charge on here, though that's got something to do with the deterioration of the game; I have no idea how to fix that one.)

Anyway, it seems that a lot of coaches and the string-pullers at the top of the pyramid disagree with me. "Flow" trumps clean play.

Now, as far as player development goes, I agree that that's a huge culprit and certainly not the officials' responsibility. It'd be nice if high school coaches could teach well-rounded skills to their players without AAU distractions; better still would be a educational system at the college level that prioritized things like "use this hand for a lay-up from the left side" or "use the glass when shooting from this angle" rather than burning up practice time on teaching sophisticated defensive schemes that end up bogging down the game.

Coaching is a wild card in a lot of these possible scenarios. There is so much pressure on them at all levels to just win, so they do whatever will accomplish that. Most HS coaches want to keep their job (most in the US are paid, are they not?) and the AAU & prep school coaches look more up than around. In all my experience as a coach and an official, systems (offense, secondary break, m2m help defenses, zone defences, press & press break, etc ) and strategies for using them to win usually take precedent during practice over individual skill development.

 

[Briancuse]

"Hold your cards, ladies and gentlemen, we have a Bingo!"

Im digging your new avatar

 

[Hoo's That]

... The game was so physical, you could clothesline an opponent with a closed fist, or shank him in a loose ball scrum, and neither would even be whistled...

Boy, you guys are always pining away for the Old Big East aren't you?

 

[Cowtown]

Boy, you guys are always pining away for the Old Big East aren't you?

The old BE of the 80's? You bet! The thug ball it degenerated into during the 90's and beyond, not so much.

 

[Cowtown]

When people say the one and done is killing college basketball, how exactly do they mean it? And what does it mean that college basketball is being killed?

Not a troll question. I have plenty of issues with the college game, but more to do with the officiating and pace of the games, which was improved last year with the shorter shot clock.

Fair enough. The way I see it is that the high end talent leaves and underclassmen don't benefit from their play-elevating skills and leadership. At the same time, under-prepared athletes are put into situations they can't handle. Look no farther than Kaleb Joseph. Others plug away as hard as they can, but the pressure becomes more than they can handle, accomplishment does not meet expectation, and they leave the system (BJ Johnson, Ron Patterson). The loss of all that absorbed learning curve is substantial, especially noteworthy on the first day of practice the next season.

Also, as I mentioned in a similar thread, being drafted into the next league becomes the focus of players, rather than team success in the league in which they're currently in. This me-first attitude is often reflected in their play, producing gunners and ball-hogs.

 

[SBU72]

I think the 1 year thing has to go. Let the kids go to the NBA right out of highschool and then do something like baseball does. If you opt for NCAA then you have to play at least 2 seasons or whatever before being able to declare for the draft. Then they should have a special combine where no one loses eligibility. It could combine High School grads and anyone who had completed at least their soph seasons in college and was an NBA prospect.

It would give the highschoolers an Idea of what they were up against, give the NBA a good look at everyone and give college teams much more stability.

Basaeball is so different from basketball that you can't make comparisons. First of all there are 176 minor league teams assoicated with major league teams. That includes short season (2 months) to 142 game AAA league. Then there you have 40 man rosters for each major league team (25 guys in the majors and 15 in the minors) who are paid by the MLB team. Each minor legue team is owned not by the major league team but by individuals/groups who pay for everything but the salaries. Then there is the movement between the minors and the majors. for example the Rochester AAA team affiliated with the Twins has already had over 30 roster changes and it isn't even June yet. Can you see the NBA doing something like that? In the majors just about every one of the 25 on the roster play periodicaly. How often does the 12th man on an NBA roster play? How ofet do the rosters change at all. Will the NBA teams have liek an 18 man roster with 6 playing in the developmental legues? All these things with MLB has evolved over decades, I doubt that the NBA is going to figure it out in a year or 2.

 

[Cowtown]

Basaeball is so different from basketball that you can't make comparisons. First of all there are 176 minor league teams assoicated with major league teams. That includes short season (2 months) to 142 game AAA league. Then there you have 40 man rosters for each major league team (25 guys in the majors and 15 in the minors) who are paid by the MLB team. Each minor legue team is owned not by the major league team but by individuals/groups who pay for everything but the salaries. Then there is the movement between the minors and the majors. for example the Rochester AAA team affiliated with the Twins has already had over 30 roster changes and it isn't even June yet. Can you see the NBA doing something like that? In the majors just about every one of the 25 on the roster play periodicaly. How often does the 12th man on an NBA roster play? How ofet do the rosters change at all. Will the NBA teams have liek an 18 man roster with 6 playing in the developmental legues? All these things with MLB has evolved over decades, I doubt that the NBA is going to figure it out in a year or 2.

The role of the minor leagues is deeply ingrained in American/baseball culture. It would take the NBA a long, long time to replicate that relationship, with both the fans (at all the relevant levels) and the parent teams. Most are making a lot of money the way it is, and are not about to part with large amounts of it for altruistic reasons. And I'll bet the bottom third of pro teams don't have that kind of financial latitude, anyway.

 

[Knicks411]

Fair enough. The way I see it is that the high end talent leaves and underclassmen don't benefit from their play-elevating skills and leadership. At the same time, under-prepared athletes are put into situations they can't handle. Look no farther than Kaleb Joseph. Others plug away as hard as they can, but the pressure becomes more than they can handle, accomplishment does not meet expectation, and they leave the system (BJ Johnson, Ron Patterson). The loss of all that absorbed learning curve is substantial, especially noteworthy on the first day of practice the next season.

Also, as I mentioned in a similar thread, being drafted into the next league becomes the focus of players, rather than team success in the league in which they're currently in. This me-first attitude is often reflected in their play, producing gunners and ball-hogs.

So it's less one and done specifically and more players leaving early? I guess my point being the system we had directly prior to one and done resulted in the high end talent never even making it to college.

 

[Cowtown]

So it's less one and done specifically and more players leaving early? I guess my point being the system we had directly prior to one and done resulted in the high end talent never even making it to college.

Two symptoms of the same problem, I'm sure.

 

[SBU72]

The role of the minor leagues is deeply ingrained in American/baseball culture. It would take the NBA a long, long time to replicate that relationship, with both the fans (at all the relevant levels) and the parent teams. Most are making a lot of money the way it is, and are not about to part with large amounts of it for altruistic reasons. And I'll bet the bottom third of pro teams don't have that kind of financial latitude, anyway.

And that was the point I was trying to make. The NBA would have to go through a cultural change to make a development league work. The NBA is such a star driven league, getting things to change is near impossible.

 

[br801]

When people say the one and done is killing college basketball, how exactly do they mean it? And what does it mean that college basketball is being killed?

Not a troll question. I have plenty of issues with the college game, but more to do with the officiating and pace of the games, which was improved last year with the shorter shot clock.

The sport seems to enjoy plenty of exposure, attendance at games remains strong, and the NCAAT is wildly popular, so yeah, I'm not sure that college basketball is being killed.

 

[Briancuse]

The sport seems to enjoy plenty of exposure, attendance at games remains strong, and the NCAAT is wildly popular, so yeah, I'm not sure that college basketball is being killed.

The problem is the rest of the season, most people really start following college basketball in March, that is a problem for your sport.

 

[Dave85]

But what else has changed to incentivize NBA teams to draft on potential rather than production. Heck, it wasn;t that long ago (ok, maybe it was) when Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Eddie Pinckney, Derrick Coleman, Rony Seikaly all stayed 4 years. Pear and Billy Owens were anomalies leaving after 3.

This will eventually be known as the golden age of college basketball.

 

[br801]

The problem is the rest of the season, most people really start following college basketball in March, that is a problem for your sport.

It's been that way for a while, and is not uncommon among other college and professional sports.

 

[Fjoinkay]

For me the change we see today is at least in part a direct result of the amazing success ESPN had in popularizing college basketball across the nation beginning all the way back in the 80s. These days the number of skilled and talented basketball players coming out of high school each year is stunning, and the NBA ends up benefitting the most. I like the parity at the college level. For me parity is good, but now the college game needs to adapt and produce a more entertaining product. The NBA is a great product and appears to be in good hands. The more interesting competition for NCAA hoops ahead might actually end up being the D League, which should never happen but could unless college hoops makes wise adjustments.

 

[Dave85]

But what else has changed to incentivize NBA teams to draft on potential rather than production. Heck, it wasn;t that long ago (ok, maybe it was) when Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Eddie Pinckney, Derrick Coleman, Rony Seikaly all stayed 4 years. Pear and Billy Owens were anomalies leaving after 3.

I've read a lot posts on a bunch of threads on the NBA, Malachi, leaving early, bla, bla, bla. But your post has really stuck with me. It truly was a great era when play like Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Eddie Pinckney, Derrick Coleman, Rony Seikaly all stayed 4 years. It's really sad what CBB has become. Your post is really haunting me. I really loved that time in CBB.

 

[Briancuse]

I've read a lot posts on a bunch of threads on the NBA, Malachi, leaving early, bla, bla, bla. But your post has really stuck with me. It truly was a great era when play like Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Eddie Pinckney, Derrick Coleman, Rony Seikaly all stayed 4 years. It's really sad what CBB has become. Your post is really haunting me. I really loved that time in CBB.

It was a great time, back then star players who would have been top 20 picks would stay three years, and people knock them for it, now we are lucky to get a 2nd year out of a guy.