College basketball; getting worse?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Fedor]

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.

[8manpick]

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 

[OregonSmock]

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.

[cork_sniffer]

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.   

[nicname]

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. 

[cork_sniffer]

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. 

[nicname]

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. 

[cork_sniffer]

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)

[nicname]

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. 

[Skipper44]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Cire]

meh, there are far fewer kids that are ready for pro sports out of high school than kids that would declare and be drafted.

[cork_sniffer]

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. 

[Cire]

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?

[OregonSmock]

Just wanted to say that this was probably the best thread I've read this entire college basketball season.  Good job, guys.

[kso_FAN]

[sys]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.

[sys]

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.

[8manpick]

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?

[Cire]

Yeah, I don't see what the measure of "better" or worse really is. 

[Cire]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[kso_FAN]

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.