• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

College Hoops

citygriz

Well-known member
Ran into an old business/sports buddy the other day. We've watched many a game together but he now has small children, and so I see him less often. Still, we both speak Sportugese, and so we got right into it, starting with the Warriors. If you live in the Bay Area right now, you are transfixed by the Warriors, their shot-making skills, of course, but more especially their movement off the ball, and the incredible passes that result from that constant flow. I know people who plan their entire social schedules around Warrior games. Then he asked me politely about my Griz, and I asked him perfunctorily about his love, Cal.
"You know," he said, "after watching the Warriors, it's just hard to watch college ball. The skill-set is so inferior. It's like watching Special Olympics."
Ouch!!
But the more I thought about it, the more I had to agree. I believe the one-and-done rule has really hurt college hoops, much more than I originally thought. Yes, attendance for college games is still up, but if you look under the hood, you see most of the attendance is with the tradition-rich bigger schools, Syracuse, Kentucky, Louisville, Duke, Carolina, et. al. Today's college stars are here and gone before we even know their names, with no time to build the kind of legacies that Bill Russell did at USF, or Christian Laettner did at Duke, or for there to develop any college rivalries with the intensity and publicity of Alcindor-Hayes or Magic-Bird. The one-and-done still works for the big schools, but I think for places like Dahlberg and the Purple Palace (where attendance is also down over the years despite Lillard and Bolomboy), the one-and-done has diminished the overall glamour we once associated with college hoops.
Remember, it all starts at the top.
 
Afraid I dont agree, I watched an ACC game the other day and there was like 8 straight possesions where it was all one on one, no passing, drive to the hoop, no defense with Sports center top 25 dunk each time.

I guess if that's what what you want to watch I goes that works for you, me i like watching team ball so I'll stick to the smaller schools.
 
citay said:
Ran into an old business/sports buddy the other day. We've watched many a game together but he now has small children, and so I see him less often. Still, we both speak Sportugese, and so we got right into it, starting with the Warriors. If you live in the Bay Area right now, you are transfixed by the Warriors, their shot-making skills, of course, but more especially their movement off the ball, and the incredible passes that result from that constant flow. I know people who plan their entire social schedules around Warrior games. Then he asked me politely about my Griz, and I asked him perfunctorily about his love, Cal.
"You know," he said, "after watching the Warriors, it's just hard to watch college ball. The skill-set is so inferior. It's like watching Special Olympics."
Ouch!!
But the more I thought about it, the more I had to agree. I believe the one-and-done rule has really hurt college hoops, much more than I originally thought. Yes, attendance for college games is still up, but if you look under the hood, you see most of the attendance is with the tradition-rich bigger schools, Syracuse, Kentucky, Louisville, Duke, Carolina, et. al. Today's college stars are here and gone before we even know their names, with no time to build the kind of legacies that Bill Russell did at USF, or Christian Laettner did at Duke, or for there to develop any college rivalries with the intensity and publicity of Alcindor-Hayes or Magic-Bird. The one-and-done still works for the big schools, but I think for places like Dahlberg and the Purple Palace (where attendance is also down over the years despite Lillard and Bolomboy), the one-and-done has diminished the overall glamour we once associated with college hoops.
Remember, it all starts at the top.

College ball has just become a cash cow for the NCAA! It's all about the tournament, and the money made for the "National Communists Against Athletics " as Jerry Tarkanian used to call them. College football is going the same route! Its all about big business! You can't blame the athletes for wanting to go pro though. They need to become pros to make money, and earn what they should, instead of risking injury. I agree, It's definitely deflated college game, and I agree with you, the game is not as good! There will never be another Lew Alcindor, Bill Russell, Bill Walton, or Magic Johnson, but the product is what it is. The good news is, it does give the mid-majors a shot now and then, and rooting for the under dog during the road to the final four is my favorite time of year. I still enjoy the college game, for the simple fact that the team can overcome the talent!
 
All the ticky-tack fouls they now call makes the college game fairly unwatchable. May as well make it like a hockey overtime where each player takes turns at free throws until there's a winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
WAaggieFan said:
All the ticky-tack fouls they now call makes the college game fairly unwatchable. May as well make it like a hockey overtime where each player takes turns at free throws until there's a winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or a World Cup soccer final where they let one guy from one team try a penalty kick and if he makes it the World Cup is over........oh wait, that's the Super Bowl not the World Cup!
 
Couldn't agree less. To me the NBA is unwatchable. However, if you are in to all star type games the NBA can't be beat. The "one and dones" are doing less damage to college basketball than the "big four" phenomenons in the NBA. So much so that I would rather watch a high school game on TV than an NBA game.
 
Agree with d. I do not and cannot watch the NBA.

I agree that officiating in SOME (mostly west) conferences needs to alter to today's game. But even that's not a problem in the majority of the P5 conferences (save the P12, where the officiating is nearly as bad as it is in the bsc).
 
EverettGriz said:
Agree with d. I do not and cannot watch the NBA.

I agree that officiating in SOME (mostly west) conferences needs to alter to today's game. But even that's not a problem in the majority of the P5 conferences (save the P12, where the officiating is nearly as bad as it is in the bsc).

I would fully have agreed with you and d on the NBA--until the Warriors came along. Man, that is some fun basketball to watch! It's almost impossible to watch their games without seeing a least a couple of eye-popping, jaw-dropping, teeth-shaking-Curry-faking, Durant-flying-Westbrook-crying, Daryl Dawkins rump-roasting, bun-toasting, ESPN posting highlight-reel plays. Check 'em out.
 
citay said:
EverettGriz said:
Agree with d. I do not and cannot watch the NBA.

I agree that officiating in SOME (mostly west) conferences needs to alter to today's game. But even that's not a problem in the majority of the P5 conferences (save the P12, where the officiating is nearly as bad as it is in the bsc).

I would fully have agreed with you and d on the NBA--until the Warriors came along. Man, that is some fun basketball to watch! It's almost impossible to watch their games without seeing a least a couple of eye-popping, jaw-dropping, teeth-shaking-Curry-faking, Durant-flying-Westbrook-crying, Daryl Dawkins rump-roasting, bun-toasting, ESPN posting highlight-reel plays. Check 'em out.

OK, I get that you love the warriors and their ball movement. It is really fun to watch, I agree. But did you watch any of the spurs from 2012 to 2014 (Pre-Aldridge)? Same thing. Great D, tons of passing and great shots. They did the Warriors thing before the warriors did it. It's easy to pass on the Spurs saying they are boring but what they really are is adaptable, and that is what Pops is so good at. He takes the talent he has and makes them into the best team they can be. Right now, unfortunately, with Aldridge killing the ball movement, their first team is an ISO-type team and their second team is more along the warriors ilk, ball-movement, threes, etc.

I understand that people were turned off of the NBA in the 2000's. I think everyone should come back and watch games now, though. The NBA is the most entertaining it has been in a long while. There are some great young players and a lot of fun teams to watch.
 
Maybe some of you ardent Grizzly fans should crawl out of the Missoula fog and watch a few Gonzaga games, very entertaining and quality team basketball. Miss reading about the Griz of the past years, have lost faith in your hot dog coach with his "small ball team". I think the Griz are in for several years of mediocrity.
 
acehunter65 said:
Maybe some of you ardent Grizzly fans should crawl out of the Missoula fog and watch a few Gonzaga games, very entertaining and quality team basketball. Miss reading about the Griz of the past years, have lost faith in your hot dog coach with his "small ball team". I think the Griz are in for several years of mediocrity.

Another great post, Asshunter!!
 
Ursa Major said:
acehunter65 said:
Maybe some of you ardent Grizzly fans should crawl out of the Missoula fog and watch a few Gonzaga games, very entertaining and quality team basketball. Miss reading about the Griz of the past years, have lost faith in your hot dog coach with his "small ball team". I think the Griz are in for several years of mediocrity.

Another great post, Asshunter!!


Not only does he hunt asses, but evidently they're of the geriatric nature (65+).
 
citay said:
EverettGriz said:
Agree with d. I do not and cannot watch the NBA.

I agree that officiating in SOME (mostly west) conferences needs to alter to today's game. But even that's not a problem in the majority of the P5 conferences (save the P12, where the officiating is nearly as bad as it is in the bsc).

I would fully have agreed with you and d on the NBA--until the Warriors came along. Man, that is some fun basketball to watch! It's almost impossible to watch their games without seeing a least a couple of eye-popping, jaw-dropping, teeth-shaking-Curry-faking, Durant-flying-Westbrook-crying, Daryl Dawkins rump-roasting, bun-toasting, ESPN posting highlight-reel plays. Check 'em out.

Going with both of you on this. I never watch the NBA, even the finals. My order of preference is college ball and then high school. People playing because they love the game.
 
fanofzoo said:
Going with both of you on this. I never watch the NBA, even the finals. My order of preference is college ball and then high school. People playing because they love the game.
We’re mostly in the anti-NBA camp, even though they clearly have lots of phenomenal athletes. With rare exceptions, the NBA is all about stars and a lot of one-on-one (read … “playground”) BBall. Not my cup of tea.

But that would be somewhat okay, except that -- for most of the season -- the players don’t really seem to give an ishtay about a particular game. Not say I blame them; I do think the season is too long. But to pay those big salaries and still make money, the owners probably need that many games. But if the players don’t really care ...Why should I? They ramp it up for the playoff, but by then we’ve lost interest.

I do agree that “one and done” has weakened the college game, but I think the impact is a bit over-stated. There are still enough players that need time to develop to give some continuity to programs. Personally, I think the three-point shot has done at least a much harm to “classic” basketball. Perhaps “harm” is the wrong word, but it has certainly changed the game drastically. Now, so much of the attack is all about “semi-penetrate” and kick out, or move it (and move it and move it) around the outside until someone has an open 3-point shot. Boooring!

The college conference tournaments and early “March Madness” games are great because you see some really talented players you’ve mostly never heard of. Plus, because teams don’t have that many talented individuals, you see a lot more real team ball. And the occasional upsets add spice to the mix.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
fanofzoo said:
Going with both of you on this. I never watch the NBA, even the finals. My order of preference is college ball and then high school. People playing because they love the game.
We’re mostly in the anti-NBA camp, even though they clearly have lots of phenomenal athletes. With rare exceptions, the NBA is all about stars and a lot of one-on-one (read … “playground”) BBall. Not my cup of tea.

But that would be somewhat okay, except that -- for most of the season -- the players don’t really seem to give an ishtay about a particular game. Not say I blame them; I do think the season is too long. But to pay those big salaries and still make money, the owners probably need that many games. But if the players don’t really care ...Why should I? They ramp it up for the playoff, but by then we’ve lost interest.

I do agree that “one and done” has weakened the college game, but I think the impact is a bit over-stated. There are still enough players that need time to develop to give some continuity to programs. Personally, I think the three-point shot has done at least a much harm to “classic” basketball. Perhaps “harm” is the wrong word, but it has certainly changed the game drastically. Now, so much of the attack is all about “semi-penetrate” and kick out, or move it (and move it and move it) around the outside until someone has an open 3-point shot. Boooring!

The college conference tournaments and early “March Madness” games are great because you see some really talented players you’ve mostly never heard of. Plus, because teams don’t have that many talented individuals, you see a lot more real team ball. And the occasional upsets add spice to the mix.

I slightly disagree with your last paragraph. The Tournament has become a cash cow and is more about betting, odds, etc. that bball. In my area, we can see at least 20 different games on any day of the season, and sometimes 30,many intersectional. Smaller programs do, indeed, play a different style than the "big guys" and few surprise anymore. I will say, Lillard from Weber, was a revelation, even though, he was outplayed by UM more often than not. But, the NCAA tourney will eventually eat itself, just like the Bowl system. One and Dones, poor academics, and out right cheating are going to kill the goose.
 
I'm guessing most of you criticizing the NBA don't really watch the NBA anymore. You probably gave up on it in the mid to late 90s when the rules allowed defenses to slow the game down and the talent pool was aging and there weren't a lot of young players to fill the gap.
But if you've watched it since the early 2000s on, you would know that isn't the truth anymore. Most of the league is not 1-on-1, its pick and roll based, which by definition brings two players into play and by extension brings the other three in because the spacing is key to forcing the defense into showing what its going to do.
Some of you have said the Warriors have helped you get back into basketball because they play team ball and have a lot of ball movement. In reality, they're not even in the top five in the league in passes per game. There are a lot of teams out there that get no attention for doing very similar things the Warriors do, they just don't have the same depth of talent. If you're willing to give test your disdain for the league, now is the time to give it a try.
I just don't understand the argument that college basketball is a better product. It's not anymore creative than the NBA is. It's not anymore talented than the NBA. The league is the BEST PRODUCT IN THE WORLD. THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD. There are certainly areas it could improve (for one, the season is too long). But claiming college is better because the players play for the love of the game is contradictory to the idea that the 1-and-done has hurt the product. If they know they're 1-and-done -- this year is a good example, go look at how many freshman are projected to be drafted in the first round this year -- they're really just playing to get to the NBA. So that is what they REALLY care about. They want to win, I'm sure, but they're there only because they have to. And to suggest NBA players don't care is pretty short sided. They're only in the NBA because they are incomprehensibly competitive. There are likely exceptions, but the overwhelming majority are competitive.
I'm a big NBA guy, so I always go a little crazy when this comparison is made. But what I'm really trying to say is, give the NBA another try.
 
kyle_sample said:
I'm guessing most of you criticizing the NBA don't really watch the NBA anymore. You probably gave up on it in the mid to late 90s when the rules allowed defenses to slow the game down and the talent pool was aging and there weren't a lot of young players to fill the gap.
But if you've watched it since the early 2000s on, you would know that isn't the truth anymore. Most of the league is not 1-on-1, its pick and roll based, which by definition brings two players into play and by extension brings the other three in because the spacing is key to forcing the defense into showing what its going to do.
Some of you have said the Warriors have helped you get back into basketball because they play team ball and have a lot of ball movement. In reality, they're not even in the top five in the league in passes per game. There are a lot of teams out there that get no attention for doing very similar things the Warriors do, they just don't have the same depth of talent. If you're willing to give test your disdain for the league, now is the time to give it a try.
I just don't understand the argument that college basketball is a better product. It's not anymore creative than the NBA is. It's not anymore talented than the NBA. The league is the BEST PRODUCT IN THE WORLD. THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD. There are certainly areas it could improve (for one, the season is too long). But claiming college is better because the players play for the love of the game is contradictory to the idea that the 1-and-done has hurt the product. If they know they're 1-and-done -- this year is a good example, go look at how many freshman are projected to be drafted in the first round this year -- they're really just playing to get to the NBA. So that is what they REALLY care about. They want to win, I'm sure, but they're there only because they have to. And to suggest NBA players don't care is pretty short sided. They're only in the NBA because they are incomprehensibly competitive. There are likely exceptions, but the overwhelming majority are competitive.
I'm a big NBA guy, so I always go a little crazy when this comparison is made. But what I'm really trying to say is, give the NBA another try.

I did give it a try and yes a lot of what you say is true, but Kevin Durant going to the Warriors really turned me off entirely. We all know they will be in the Finals barring injury and even if they play bad a game they have to play bad 4 games to not be the Champion. I like that the #1 team in CBB, Gonzaga right now, is only 1 bad game from being done in March.
 
Back
Top