goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: kso_FAN on January 29, 2013, 08:45:28 PM
-
There has been plenty of discussion about how "bad" the Big 12 is this year, but also how bad college basketball is in general. Stats nerd @BPredict actual did a statistical study of the game and its progress and came up with some interesting results in this article (http://ht.ly/hfk3u). Here are his charts, though he has some interesting thoughts in his analysis as well.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-epilJsdOJPE%2FUQhhOKPr2HI%2FAAAAAAAAAuo%2F15pJeybSG0E%2Fs1600%2FEff_1.jpg&hash=f36b6d7d3e275be51d703db207984725eeddc39a)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-OXQlHWeQHrs%2FUQhhOMB1-zI%2FAAAAAAAAAuk%2FXnGqo_QdROE%2Fs1600%2FEff_2.jpg&hash=8e980a8b9e015b356f56c410cf49fd3a09c7f21f)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wiambFGNsHQ%2FUQhii4xXfTI%2FAAAAAAAAAu0%2FKLQtMn7O3pE%2Fs1600%2FEff_3.jpg&hash=f3a4ca23d5959902bfe84209f70a2dc96a34b1e3)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pZZ1Qzan5N8%2FUQhjDj2E8HI%2FAAAAAAAAAvE%2FkygNHz4AORg%2Fs1600%2FEff_4.jpg&hash=8c6d60916e7f295df976e2d0eadf44ce1a110470)
-
Officials are getting worse causing shittier and uglier play across the sport.
(Just one theory!)
-
Officials are getting worse causing shittier and uglier play across the sport.
(Just one theory!)
Meh. They are just calling fewer fouls.
I honestly think complaining about officiating is overrated. I've watched the game closely since the early 90s, I don't think officiating has gotten a lot worse during that time.
JMHO.
-
Officials are getting worse causing shittier and uglier play across the sport.
(Just one theory!)
Meh. They are just calling fewer fouls.
I honestly think complaining about officiating is overrated. I've watched the game closely since the early 90s, I don't think officiating has gotten a lot worse during that time.
JMHO.
because they call less fouls, nearly every foul looks like it could go either way because they just let the exact same thing slide on the last possession. people get frustrated with the inconsistency i think.
-
Did you see KU$ foul numbers as posted on gpc!!!
-
That was an interesting read. I love the quotes from the old-timey dumbass coaches.
-
Hey _Fan, just out of curiosity cause I'm not sure but how long has Div. 1 been 346 (or more) teams in Division I basketball, and if that's not a factor behind this? I wonder if as time goes on the proliferation of more teams at the top level have, in general, created a situation where more teams has caused a sort of watering down affect in college basketball? So yes, it has gotten worse, but mostly because there are more teams running around that create more opportunities for talent to diffuse around a ton of teams mixed with lesser talent rather than just a few. I mean, given a general stability in the size of the talent pool over time if there were less teams in Div. 1, then each one of those teams would on average more talented players (given how it is the top level of college athletics), and more talented player generally = better teams. IDK, just a thought.
-
Interesting. I think "better" is pretty subjective and just about any old-timer wishing for the way it was really gets on my nerves. (This applies to almost any subject fwiw)
-
Does anybody else think that oscar/Gottlieb combined looks like Fred Hoiberg?
-
DNR the article, but does he address the FG% in it? It trends down after the introduction of the 3-point line until it hits a new level that basically has remained the same. Why FG% and not EFG%?
Also, this is a down year for the Big 12/college in general but the game is still interesting, and might be even more interesting this year to casual fans with the lack of a dominant team.
-
Does anybody else think that oscar/Gottlieb combined looks like Fred Hoiberg?
:lol:
-
Do you guys know if its possible for no team to win the championship this year and they just have a push until next year when the winner gets to claim 2 ships? Kinda like skins in golf, you know?
-
I don't like statistics, I like subjective gut feelings and my gut says college basketball is much better than ever.
-
I don't like statistics, I like subjective gut feelings and my gut says college basketball is much better than ever.
I would love to kick your gut in the balls.
-
I don't like statistics, I like subjective gut feelings and my gut says college basketball is much better than ever.
I would love to kick your gut in the balls.
I bet you would, bad person
-
It's bad enough that KU with no point guard or power forward is considered a threat to win the national title.
-
I don't like statistics, I like subjective gut feelings and my gut says college basketball is much better than ever.
Your gut is correct, and I think the statistics support it.
-
Officials are getting worse causing shittier and uglier play across the sport.
(Just one theory!)
Meh. They are just calling fewer fouls.
I honestly think complaining about officiating is overrated. I've watched the game closely since the early 90s, I don't think officiating has gotten a lot worse during that time.
JMHO.
everytime _FAN says "JMHO" after (in the nicest way possible mind you,) telling someone they're an idiot - i chuckle a little. except when he's talking to me :frown:
-
It's bad enough that KU with no point guard or power forward is considered a threat to win the national title.
Probably the worst #1 team in the history of college basketball :barf:
Still think know Michigan would beat them by 20
-
Officials are getting worse causing shittier and uglier play across the sport.
(Just one theory!)
Meh. They are just calling fewer fouls.
I honestly think complaining about officiating is overrated. I've watched the game closely since the early 90s, I don't think officiating has gotten a lot worse during that time.
JMHO.
everytime _FAN says "JMHO" after (in the nicest way possible mind you,) telling someone they're an idiot - i chuckle a little. except when he's talking to me :frown:
effectively the _FAN mush. very devastating.
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
Great post.
-
I wish there were fewer set plays.
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
I think the bolded part is a bit overstated, but the rest of your post is very insightful.
-
less early departures, more transfers. With the change to the recruiting calendar the transfer number should go down unless the NCAA enacts that stupid ass 2.6 GPA transfer rule.
-
Need to get rid of the 3 point line so them damn midmajors can't use that as an equalizer against more talented teams in the torn-a-ment :shakesfist:
-
Today you've regressed back to bigwillie20 circa February 2012. Take a long lunch break, get some food, catch a nap and come back later.
-
Today you've regressed back to bigwillie20 circa February 2012. Take a long lunch break, get some food, catch a nap and come back later.
:dubious:
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
I think the bolded part is a bit overstated, but the rest of your post is very insightful.
yeah, that would be more accurate for the NBA. I did read a study a few years ago where it looked at the probability of high school aged kids making teams in any of the major professional sports leagues in America. (I teach/coach in the inner city and we get all kinds of literature like this) Basketball was by far the most exclusive due to the huge influx of international players and a literal doubling of participation domestically in a generation (secondary or high school level athletes vs number of roster spots on average available for each incoming rookie class). That is where I got the 3 to 5 times, I should have worded that differently. I think the reason basketball has grown so much in the last 20 years can be tied to Magic, Bird, Jordan, and the Dream team directly. I wonder what percentage of NBA players and college players are foreign born now? 20%?
-
are there really more transfers? is there data to back that up?
-
Scouting has also improved tenfold.
Everyone has the ability to see every second a player has played, in addition to advanced stats and tendencies.
-
are there really more transfers? is there data to back that up?
I'm not going to look for it but Goodman had a chart that showed a steady rise in transfers. The rise in transfers was sighted in the recruiting calendar rule change.
-
are there really more transfers? is there data to back that up?
I can't find any. There are articles that point that direction, but don't give historical numbers.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2012/11/06/ncaa-mens-college-basketball-transfers/1679115/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/sports/ncaafootball/college-basketball-transfers-gain-popularity.html
According to N.C.A.A. statistics, about 40 percent of men’s basketball players will not be playing for their original team by the end of their sophomore year.
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
I think the bolded part is a bit overstated, but the rest of your post is very insightful.
yeah, that would be more accurate for the NBA. I did read a study a few years ago where it looked at the probability of high school aged kids making teams in any of the major professional sports leagues in America. (I teach/coach in the inner city and we get all kinds of literature like this) Basketball was by far the most exclusive due to the huge influx of international players and a literal doubling of participation domestically in a generation (secondary or high school level athletes vs number of roster spots on average available for each incoming rookie class). That is where I got the 3 to 5 times, I should have worded that differently. I think the reason basketball has grown so much in the last 20 years can be tied to Magic, Bird, Jordan, and the Dream team directly. I wonder what percentage of NBA players and college players are foreign born now? 20%?
Definitely agree for NBA, but so many of the really good foreign guys are playing pro Euroball before coming to the NBA, instead of going to college (see Ricky Rubio, et al.). I don't think many of the top foreign players are coming here to play college ball.
-
I don't think many of the top foreign players are coming here to play college ball.
Most can't because they aren't amateurs.
-
I don't think many of the top foreign players are coming here to play college ball.
Most can't because they aren't amateurs.
Yeah, I mean, I didn't phrase it very well, but I did say they were playing pro ball the sentence before that.
-
there are more foreign born college players than you think, many of whom play mid to low major ball. keep in mind canada is another country. :)
the point being that basketball, unlike football, is played all over the world right now at a relatively high level. That has an effect on the amount of talented players available for rosters and ultimately makes the best players not as exceptional physically (ie levels the playing field more and makes things more competitive).
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
I think the bolded part is a bit overstated, but the rest of your post is very insightful.
yeah, that would be more accurate for the NBA. I did read a study a few years ago where it looked at the probability of high school aged kids making teams in any of the major professional sports leagues in America. (I teach/coach in the inner city and we get all kinds of literature like this) Basketball was by far the most exclusive due to the huge influx of international players and a literal doubling of participation domestically in a generation (secondary or high school level athletes vs number of roster spots on average available for each incoming rookie class). That is where I got the 3 to 5 times, I should have worded that differently. I think the reason basketball has grown so much in the last 20 years can be tied to Magic, Bird, Jordan, and the Dream team directly. I wonder what percentage of NBA players and college players are foreign born now? 20%?
Definitely agree for NBA, but so many of the really good foreign guys are playing pro Euroball before coming to the NBA, instead of going to college (see Ricky Rubio, et al.). I don't think many of the top foreign players are coming here to play college ball.
not top players but for the sake of looking at the pool of talent that is feeding the college and ultimately the nba levels it is significant when talking about parity at each level being influenced by the larger talent pool. Gonzaga has 5 foreign players in their rotation this year and has relied on euros, aussies, and canadiens since few took over pretty much. UCONN has 3 german players, KU just recruited a kid from Cameroon and signed one from canada last year. I think there is between 1 and 3 on every roster in the big 12. (except KSU and KU)
-
They could fix college basketball with 3 rule changes. Maybe even 2 rule changes and 1 point of emphasis.
-
They could fix college basketball with 3 rule changes. Maybe even 2 rule changes and 1 point of emphasis.
Which ones :D
-
when KSU is good it always seems like college basketball is getting better. but, when we suck it seems like it's getting worse. we have the worst luck.
-
when KSU is good it always seems like college basketball is getting better. but, when we suck it seems like it's getting worse. we have the worst luck.
Actually this year I think we are taking advantage for the most part. We're ranked. Can you believe that?
-
when KSU is good it always seems like college basketball is getting better. but, when we suck it seems like it's getting worse. we have the worst luck.
Actually this year I think we are taking advantage for the most part. We're ranked. Can you believe that?
_33, shut up
-
You shut up
-
steve dave is not very nice to his real life friends.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
-
some teams are better, some teams are worse. cbball is .500, similar to previous years.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
-
the players are better, bigger, stronger, and faster as a result of the explosion of the games popularity domestically and internationally leading to a talent pool feeding college basketball that is somewhere between 3 and 5 times the size that it was just 15 years ago. there is more player turnover (early departures and transfers) and less coaching time (20 hour rule + more games). offenses and defenses are far more complex than ever now that most coaches have 50 to 100 set plays instead of running motion with a handful of sets.
to the untrained and/or biased eye basketball looks down but in reality the game itself has never been better in many ways. If the refs started calling the game like they did 15-20 years ago and let offenses run without so much contact then we'd see an explosion in scoring. but with the bigger stronger players the refs seem less inclined to call basic contact such as holding and bumping cutters and body'ing up shooters. the result is lower scoring and more physical games that makes it seem like there is less talent out there. It's not that they don't call enough fouls or need to call less fouls it's what over time is being allowed in the normal course of a possession that has changed the game so much.
Lock it up boys
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
Tim Duncan was the #1 pick in 1997 and after finishing his senior year at Wake Forest.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
Tim Duncan was the #1 pick in 1997 and after finishing his senior year at Wake Forest.
Tim Duncan couldn't compete in today's game :blindfold:
-
Very interesting. Thanks, _fan. For those that might not have read the whole article, here's the writer's take on how the game has changed over the years:
So what has changed over the past few decades? The most dominant change is that the game is slower. There are fewer possessions per game. But the change isn't that much. Analysts saying that teams used to score 100 per game and now we have 43-42 games are anomaly hunting. The average game is only down over the past 30 years from around 70-71 points per game to around 68. There's always been large game-to-game and team-to-team variation, and it washes out over a sample of around 5,000 games per season.
The more important thing to me is that games are much cleaner. Teams are better at not turning the ball over. They are better protecting the defensive glass. And scoring efficiency is, ever so slightly, increasing.
So in other words, the common myth that you will read constantly from major publications and will hear constantly on television that scoring is significantly down because quality is down and the game is much more physical is not at all backed up by the statistics.
What the statistics tell us is that players are more cautious now. They take more time running their offense, and play a cleaner game. And it's been a steady trend for decades, and does not seem to have been impacted in any significant way by the increase in players going pro early.
Why is this happening? I can only speculate. There is more film study now, the attention paid to the sport is greater and the stakes are higher. I guess it makes sense that coaches would slow down and clean up the game a bit. But like I said, that's just speculation.
But the idea that the quality level is down significantly and that the game has gotten boring, which you have heard for decades and will hear for decades into the future, is simply not backed up by anything objective.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
I wouldn't say that.
the best players are the same, it's the average players that have improved in the last 15 years so much. the freshmen coming into college are physically more ready and have far more skills and experience but the cream of the crop hasn't changed much at all. The end result though is the best players don't look as dominant because they are competing against better players on a consistent basis.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
I wouldn't say that.
the best players are the same, it's the average players that have improved in the last 15 years so much. the freshmen coming into college are physically more ready and have far more skills and experience but the cream of the crop hasn't changed much at all. The end result though is the best players don't look as dominant because they are competing against better players on a consistent basis.
I wouldn't say that. The better players today look more dominant at a younger age because the guys they would be going up against are in the NBA already.
-
CBB peaked in the late 80's early 90's. It dropped off around 94-95. It has been pretty steady since then.
the eff?
WHITE TIGER!!!!!
White Tiger aside, if quality of play is a combination of talent/ ability, training and experience, then yeah, about that time. It was the 95 draft, I think, when younger guys really started going pro a lot more. Sure, the talent pool may be larger now, but the top guys aren't sticking around. It dilutes everything else from there on down. What the Fab Five did was special because they were doing it against a bunch of seasoned veterans; a bunch of guys who would already be in the league in today's game.
The best freshmen in college today are worlds better than the best seniors playing college ball more than 15 years ago.
I wouldn't say that.
the best players are the same, it's the average players that have improved in the last 15 years so much. the freshmen coming into college are physically more ready and have far more skills and experience but the cream of the crop hasn't changed much at all. The end result though is the best players don't look as dominant because they are competing against better players on a consistent basis.
I wouldn't say that. The better players today look more dominant at a younger age because the guys they would be going up against are in the NBA already.
that is leaving out the fact that there are more players of NBA caliber when compared to the past playing today. Sure some leave early but there is a lot more talent so it evens itself out essentially.
it's like what happens with high school class divisions. basketball was 3A before and now is 6A. Sure there are always some really good players coming out of 3A but the guy guarding that player night in night out is not going to be nearly as good. the end result is to the untrained eye that 3A player looks better than the 6A player.
-
I can see that. It is probably a balance somewhere in between the two extremes.
As a fan, and more specifically a college basketball fan, I would like to see some type of higher age limit on the NBA. Would that be the best thing for the players themselves? Probably not, but it would greatly increase the viewing pleasure for me while following both the NCAA and the NBA varieties of the game.
A 21-year age minimum would keep many in college for at least three years, strengthening both the NCAA and NBA games as a whole.
-
I can see that. It is probably a balance somewhere in between the two extremes.
As a fan, and more specifically a college basketball fan, I would like to see some type of higher age limit on the NBA. Would that be the best thing for the players themselves? Probably not, but it would greatly increase the viewing pleasure for me while following both the NCAA and the NBA varieties of the game.
A 21-year age minimum would keep many in college for at least three years, strengthening both the NCAA and NBA games as a whole.
one of the more interesting ideas was to allow NBA teams to draft players after their first year of college but allow them to continue to play college for 2 or 3 more years. (obviously they'd have to figure out the financial side of things)
-
I can see that. It is probably a balance somewhere in between the two extremes.
As a fan, and more specifically a college basketball fan, I would like to see some type of higher age limit on the NBA. Would that be the best thing for the players themselves? Probably not, but it would greatly increase the viewing pleasure for me while following both the NCAA and the NBA varieties of the game.
A 21-year age minimum would keep many in college for at least three years, strengthening both the NCAA and NBA games as a whole.
one of the more interesting ideas was to allow NBA teams to draft players after their first year of college but allow them to continue to play college for 2 or 3 more years. (obviously they'd have to figure out the financial side of things)
That is interesting. They could even go so far as to have the NBA franchises supply the money for the cost of the scholarship of the player. Of course, they would have to find a way to avoid NBA teams from directing players to different schools. I guess the money could come from a communal bank that each NBA team contributes to equally.
-
isn't that how it used to work? Larry Bird had already been drafted by the Celtics back in the strange ages. I don't remember as I am not quite ancient.
-
In baseball, you either get drafted out of high school, or you can't enter the draft until you finish college. I think that's an interesting system, though I don't really advocate it because I don't see why any athlete who is good enough to go pro in any sport should have to waste his time playing amateur ball just because of some arbitrary rule.
-
meh, there are far fewer kids that are ready for pro sports out of high school than kids that would declare and be drafted.
-
meh, there are far fewer kids that are ready for pro sports out of high school than kids that would declare and be drafted.
baseball has minor league farm systems to develop talent. The D league was envisioned that way but it's not really working out that great from what i've heard.
-
meh, there are far fewer kids that are ready for pro sports out of high school than kids that would declare and be drafted.
baseball has minor league farm systems to develop talent. The D league was envisioned that way but it's not really working out that great from what i've heard.
Is that because guys jump to Europe?
-
Just wanted to say that this was probably the best thread I've read this entire college basketball season. Good job, guys.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F7348%2F10yearncaaadvanced.png&hash=6e75e62feb8f87a8661c3c600abb093f6d9e9ce7)
-
Just wanted to say that this was probably the best thread I've read this entire college basketball season. Good job, guys.
good lord. it's a horrible thread. i tried to intimidate it, but it wouldn't take the hint.
-
Just wanted to say that this was probably the best thread I've read this entire college basketball season. Good job, guys.
good lord. it's a horrible thread. i tried to intimidate it, but it wouldn't take the hint.
Your "college bb is .500" post was pretty good.
-
Your "college bb is .500" post was pretty good.
it seemed like a good post at the time, but it failed to accomplish anything of note.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F7348%2F10yearncaaadvanced.png&hash=6e75e62feb8f87a8661c3c600abb093f6d9e9ce7)
How would you interpret these as far as basketball getting better or worse? OR% seems to be the only one that is somewhat indicative, since the defense should (maybe?) have an advantage for rebounding, so lower OR% means 'better' basketball?
-
Yeah, I don't see what the measure of "better" or worse really is.
-
I guess maybe they are trying to get at the fact that there aren't as many teams that pass "the eyeball test" as there were when Jerry Tarkanian was biting towels.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F7348%2F10yearncaaadvanced.png&hash=6e75e62feb8f87a8661c3c600abb093f6d9e9ce7)
How would you interpret these as far as basketball getting better or worse? OR% seems to be the only one that is somewhat indicative, since the defense should (maybe?) have an advantage for rebounding, so lower OR% means 'better' basketball?
if you're an old curmudgeon you think everything was better in the good old days. If scoring goes up, it's because these lazy thugs don't play defense. If scoring goes down, it's because these thugs are thuggin' up the game. You can apply this to any stat you want, and will always be able to.
-
I don't think it's worse or better, but it's changed a bit. It's a slower, more defensive game, but teams also handle the ball better. I enjoy college basketball as much as I ever have.
-
I guess maybe they are trying to get at the fact that there aren't as many teams that pass "the eyeball test" as there were when Jerry Tarkanian was biting towels.
Is there anyway to do all the stats for just the Top 25 teams in the final AP poll? Or maybe just the 1-6 seeds in the tourney?
-
I guess maybe they are trying to get at the fact that there aren't as many teams that pass "the eyeball test" as there were when Jerry Tarkanian was biting towels.
Is there anyway to do all the stats for just the Top 25 teams in the final AP poll? Or maybe just the 1-6 seeds in the tourney?
What exactly would that prove?
-
I guess maybe they are trying to get at the fact that there aren't as many teams that pass "the eyeball test" as there were when Jerry Tarkanian was biting towels.
Is there anyway to do all the stats for just the Top 25 teams in the final AP poll? Or maybe just the 1-6 seeds in the tourney?
What exactly would that prove?
I think it'd be interesting to see how the 'top' teams do in relation to the teams from the past. If CBB is indeed getting 'watered down' then that should have an affect on the best teams year-to-year.
-
You didn't understand the question.
-
I enjoy college basketball as much as I ever have.
i'm enjoying it about as much as i did around 87-91, considerably more than i did from 92-06.