The State of College Basketball

[3pointgod]

Why is the talent pool in college basketball so much weaker than it was ten years ago? The teams aren't as good, there aren't "dominant" teams and just the general state of of the sport is at the lowest point of my lifetime. I don't know how to explain it. Many people think the "one-and-done" players are hurting the game, but I don't give that argument much credence. I mean the game was thriving when players could go pro directly from high school. So what's the deal? Is it just a phase that college basketball is going through? Or do you guys think there's some underlying issue that needs fixing?

[Flash]

Because of the one and done rule. However, the rule has its benefits for the college because you have stars coming into college year after year.

[Real Deal]

You say there aren't any dominant teams, but just three years ago, all four #1 seeds made the Final Four, the first time in tourney history, dominating the regular season and the tourney.

 

This year, three #1 seeds are out by the Elite 8, and the tourney has more talent than just the top four on each corner of the bracket. More variety.

 

Guys like Jimmer Fredette carried a very good BYU team basically without much help, while Nolan Smith (another top player) led a nearly-complete Duke team that won it all last season. All the while, Kansas is rolling with 2-3 excellent post players and a few perimeter shooters, and Kemba Walker is doing his thing with less help at UConn. Sullinger's Buckeyes are arguably more complete than Duke.

 

The variety makes it interesting.

[3pointgod]

I agree the variety does make it interesting and I like it. More teams get to the big games and more fans from various regions get involved, which is always a good thing. But the depth and overall talent just isn't there. Look at things this year, an 8, 11, 4 and 3 are in the Final Four, by the numbers it's the weakest Final Four ever. Butler has made back-to-back Final Fours!!! No disrespect to Butler, I'm pulling for them again this year, but it just shows that there are a ton of average teams and players and very few that can take over games consistently. Kemba is awesome, D Will is a man-child... But the depth and overall talent just isn't there.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who don't believe that the game is no where near what it once was. I just want to know why and how we can change it.

[Lkr]

Just because Butler isn't a household name doesn't make their talent level average. You don't get to back to back final fours with an average team. They beat Florida, ODU, and Pittsburgh alone this tournament, so they must not be that untalented.

[Flash]

Butler is not as talented as UF, UK, UNC, UCONN or Kansas or any of the big name schools. However, they play so well together as a team, they never quit and they're extremely well coached.

 

They do the little things that can erase a talent gap between teams and that's why they're so good. There's talent on that team (Mack, Nored and maybe Howard are all pretty talented guys) but nowhere near the big schools.

[Lkr]

Butler is not as talented as UF, UK, UNC, UCONN or Kansas or any of the big name schools. However, they play so well together as a team, they never quit and they're extremely well coached.

 

They do the little things that can erase a talent gap between teams and that's why they're so good. There's talent on that team (Mack, Nored and maybe Howard are all pretty talented guys) but nowhere near the big schools.

I agree they aren't as talented as some of the bigger schools, but to say they lack overall talent is an insult to Butler that has no ground. Don't blame Butler that they recruited players with talent that had the intent on staying for 4 years to grow as a team instead of just ditch their teammates a few months after joining them.

[3pointgod]

This is by no means an indictment on Butler, It's an indictment on the talent of the entire NCAA.

[?QuestionMark?]

The one-and-done does hurt. Big or Powerhouse schools will always be able to replace talent even if they only stay a year, but you could argue that there'll be chemistry issues when you're constantly bringing new guys each year and just throw them together. The learning curve could be pretty steep and it may take a year or two to really gel....except players leave before then.

 

I think Butler's greatest strength is their chemisty and leadership from their upperclassmen. In tournament time that's a valuable intangible. Talent wise they may not be as deep as other schools, but their starting 5 is comparable.

 

I also think a lot of players don't want to wait their turn and want to play right away. So instead of waiting two years to start as say UCLA, they go to Oregon and get big minutes right away. Yahoo had a interesting article about this. It used to be that the top players went to UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UConn, Michigan State, Georgetown, Kansas, UCLA and were willing to wait their turn because they knew they would get TV time to impress NBA teams eventually when they turned into starters their Jr. or Sr. year. But with ESPN and cable TV, they're on TV all the time now regardless. So that opens the door for teams that may not be regarded as historic powers like Oregon, Gonzaga, Texas A&M, Florida St, etc. They may not get the 5 star recruits, but they get the next tier of talented players that might stay 3 to 4 years.

 

 

And yes there is a lack of fundamentals that is hurting the game. Most players now are either about getting all the way to the rack or hitting the three; nothing in between. In AAU there's not as much team work as it is just riding your best player. Which hurts when they get to college and are expected to play without the ball in their hands all the time.