re: How badly does College Basketball need a change?

quote:

---

Don't act like they aren't an exception

---

They really aren't. If anyone is an exception nowadays it is the Thunder.

quote:

---

Don't act like they aren't an exception

---

Used to be, like circa 2011 or so.

Now? Not really. Still probably the best in the league at total team play when we're hitting on all cylinders (which, admittedly, we haven't been much of this season), but not unique in so doing anymore.

Hell, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal just this week talking about how NBA defenses have had to adapt to more threats on the floor than in the past.

quote:

---

cause the NBA has such good defense

---

Yeah, they do, actually.

Actual defense, not just clogging the lane and hacking like cbb.

quote:

---

so giving up 100 points a game is good defense? OK

---

So dumb

quote:

---

So dumb

---

wow really got me there.

do me a favor and enlighten me on how great the defenses in the NBA are.

The idea that holding the best basketball players in the world to 1 point per possession being "bad defense" is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

Thib's revolutionized how defense is played in the NBA and many teams have attempted to model his success.

This should help: Bulls defense breakdown

quote:

---

How badly does College Basketball need a change?

---

It doesn't. Teams like UVa, Wisconsin, Arizona, etc. are dramatically improving the quality of play.

High scoring =/= Good basketball.

Entertaining for the uninformed viewer =/= Good basketball.

Those teams play outstanding team basketball, and it's beautiful to watch.

Kinda dumb to compare NBA and CBB. Of course the NBA is the superior product because it features the best players in the world and there's a huge difference in terms of quality.

quote:

---

Alex Lin was a terrible player for Maryland, but he still left after one year because, well, he is 7 feet tall and the NBA still values big guys. To act like only Kentucky is affected by one and dones is just as disengious. And honestly, the entity hurt by that scenario was not really Maryland, but Lin. He had no business leaving that early.

---

i think Len is a great example of leaving early being great. Len was hurt a lot of last year but is coming around this year

i think he leads the NBA in blocks since the ASG. it's not likely that he'd be developing that kind of rim protection in college, esp with how much college relies on zone D.

quote:

---

Outside of LeBron and Kobe, most players will benefit from more developmental time in college. They go into the NBA as a better player, which helps them and the league.

---

other than marketability, i don't see how playing a different game, being coached by inferior coaches, and having limited coaching time can be argued to develop players better for the NBA game. college coaches are not coaching for NBA development adn this often leads to massive gaps that the player would not be receiving if he spent that time being developed for the NBA game by NBA professionals (coaches, trainers, statisticians, etc)

quote:

---

He was projected top 5 pick. Every kid would have left for that.

---

Of course. He should've left, but here's the thing: why the hell was he a top 5 pick? He was a terrible college player. He could barely keep his starting job, yet the NBA took him the lottery rounds? The NBA can't continually absorb bad players in its draft. They rely on the pipeline of college talent, and they currently have a system that spits out Alex Len as one of the best players. That's a horrifyingly poor talent base.

quote:

---

Over 75% of these 1 and done guys really don't if you look at the actual guys that did leave.

---

And those guys shouldn't go to college at all. Durant was wasting his time in college and was literally forced to go by rule. That's terrible as well. Take the top players out of the college pool and let them go straight to the pros. Players not good enough to go straight from high school, should then spend more than a year honing their skills.

I've got no problem with a terrific high school talent who is good enough to play pro ball to go play pro ball. I'm talking about players who also leave early who aren't good enough, and will get drummed out of the league because the NBA is not a developmental league, nor should it be.

quote:

---

The way you are looking at this is just completely wrong.

---

No, I look at it like a fan of the college game. You're looking at like a fan of the NBA (and also, the article doesn't say what you think it says: the very creme de la creme of talent are one and dones, and they only become star players 25% of the time... that's not a great return rate considering its the peak of the talent pool, and over a third are bit players or flops, so a one and done player is more likely to be a bit player than a star, yet you're arguing it hasn't hurt the talent pool?)

I think the NBA would benefit from better college talent, which is intuitively obvious, but more importantly to me: college would benefit. If you removed one and done players entirely and have them go straight to the NBA, the quality of college basketball would go up just do to lack of turnover in programs.

Barring injury, almost all players improve from their freshman to junior years, often dramtaically. College loses out on this developmental curve. I'd rather have a slightly less talented freshman who stays 3 years than a superstar who stays one. It's better for your program, as you get more production, and by year three, the player who stayed is, a lot of the time, as good as that freshman. Also, there's just the value of roster stability. Look at LSU football for an example of how roster volatility can hurt a talented roster.

Finally, it's better for fans. You learn to hate people. Hating Duke is not nearly as much fun as it once was, because a guy like Okafor is going to be gone in a year. Same with Jabari Parker before him. You don't get years of hating Shane Battier or whatever crappy white point guard he has to slap the floor. College sports thrive on those hatreds, and basketball is robbing itself of it. As soon as you learn a player, he's gone.

Now, I think the ancillary benefits would aid the NBA with increased talent, but that's not the primary reason to adopt the college baseball rules. It's better for the college game.

Also, for a great team, Kentucky isn't that great. That's the most depressing thing. They are destroying college basketball this season, and that roster would've gotten stomped by the great programs of the 1980s, just because those teams had MEN on them, not just a bunch of kids. It would be like a loaded AAA team full of future Hall of Famers playing a good MLB team. sure, the AAA team has more talent, but they will usually lose, based on where they are on the developmental curve.


ETA: I do acknowledge Brad Stevens is great, but Butler is just one team. Five midmajors seeded five or lower have made the Final Four in the past eight years. Prior to that, it was one in thirty years. Even removing Butler from the equation means that midmajors are seeing far more success. Now, do you think midmajors have gotten that much better recently or is it because big schools have gotten worse? My money is on B. If it's A, there's no problem. In fact, it's great.