Watered Down March Madness?

#26
#26
pl3 said:
Which is why the , does or doesn't "develop nba players" argument hasn't meant much to me, regardless of the coach. 90% of today's nba players are "ready" for the nba game before they are finished with their freshman years. AAU develops players for the nba game better than college coaches, imo. College coaches are trying to build a team and the nba is trying to find the most skilled individual player available. Jmo, of course.
Click to expand...

No way. AAU, overall is what's killing the skill level of the game.
 
#27
#27
pl3 said:
Which is why the , does or doesn't "develop nba players" argument hasn't meant much to me, regardless of the coach. 90% of today's nba players are "ready" for the nba game before they are finished with their freshman years. AAU develops players for the nba game better than college coaches, imo. College coaches are trying to build a team and the nba is trying to find the most skilled individual player available. Jmo, of course.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Yes, they want skilled invididual players...but those skilled individual players benefit an NBA team much more if they have an understanding of how to play team basketball. Plus, a guy that stays four years in college is going to be a more polished player than he would be had he come out after his freshman year. He'll be able to shoot the ball better; he'll have a more well-rounded offensive skillset; he'll learn to play team defense, etc.
 
#28
#28
AAU plays a role in all of this. High school hoops, basketball camps, training methods, etc. are all more available and more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago. So even if the top 60 (according to Wilbon's article) players are gone, the remaining guys on the 300 NCAA rosters are better than they were 30 years ago.
 
#29
#29
nbakerld said:
You're not really getting my point. Just because 3 good players were on 1 team doesn't mean overall the NCAA was more talented, it just means that 3 talented players were on 1 team. I'm saying that we don't know what the talent level is. It could be the same or better, just more equally dispersed.
Click to expand...

The general consensus among anybody with an opinion -- including the opinion of NBA scouts -- is that this is the worst draft in recent memory.
 
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
AAU plays a role in all of this. High school hoops, basketball camps, training methods, etc. are all more available and more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago. So even if the top 60 (according to Wilbon's article) players are gone, the remaining guys on the 300 NCAA rosters are better than they were 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

All right, so let's follow this logic and see where it leads us. Let's say you take the top two guys off of each of the top 30 teams in the country -- because while there are 350 Division 1 teams, let's be honest, there aren't a lot of guys leaving early from the CAA -- and replace them in the lineup with the #6 and #7 players. Even if it's true that these #6 and #7 guys are a lot better than they would have been 30 years ago, you're still replacing every minute of an NBA quality talent with a guy that wouldn't have otherwise seen the floor. Massive dropoff.
 
#31
#31
JZVOL said:
No way. AAU, overall is what's killing the skill level of the game.
Click to expand...


Fundamentals, yes. But individual, one on one, skills are the basis for AAU camps and tournaments. They don't play D either. College coaches don't focus on individual skills as much. That's why guys like Bilas said Hopson had the best skill set this summer while doing drills at Lebron's camp. (I think it was Lebrons) The college game just doesn't translate well to the pro game. If they didn't have the freshman rule, outside of int'l players, the top 10-15 picks each year would be AAU camp and team studs.
 
#32
#32
kidbourbon said:
The general consensus among anybody with an opinion -- including the opinion of NBA scouts -- is that this is the worst draft in recent memory.
Click to expand...

1) Scouts and "experts" are frequently wrong
2) Being a great college player has nothing to do with being a good NBA player.
 
#33
#33
Decent read, and I agree.

IMO the problem comes from a number of local and AAU influences on kids these days. Any player good enough to make a starting roster for a major conference is pampered and massaged from the age of about 12 to think that they're a shoe-in for the NBA, then they end up overlooking college.

Everything comes back to the attitudes that high-level athletes have... And lots of basketball players that are good but not great don't know their place.
 
#34
#34
Vercingetorix said:
All right, so let's follow this logic and see where it leads us. Let's say you take the top two guys off of each of the top 30 teams in the country -- because while there are 350 Division 1 teams, let's be honest, there aren't a lot of guys leaving early from the CAA -- and replace them in the lineup with the #6 and #7 players. Even if it's true that these #6 and #7 guys are a lot better than they would have been 30 years ago, you're still replacing every minute of an NBA quality talent with a guy that wouldn't have otherwise seen the floor. Massive dropoff.
Click to expand...

Let's take your hypothetical as a given. We still have to assume that the #1 through #5 players from 30 years ago are better than the #3 through #7 guys today. With a much larger talent pool and more training resources I don't know that this is the case.

If you take the 42% of world class sprinters today that range between the 84th and 42nd percentile and measured them against the top 42% of world class sprinters 30 years ago, which group is going to have a better average time?
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
Vercingetorix said:
Of course he's right. The best players used to stay the full four years. They'd get three years better and their bodies would get three years more mature. Now the best players are raw, scrawny 18 year olds who are gone before they even figure out what they're doing. It used to be that almost every team in the Final Four was stocked with highly talented senior leadership; now it's either/or. The guys now who stick around until their senior years are by definition not that talented.

This isn't an old man argument; it's common sense. What would happen to college football if players could go after a year? Eric Berry, gone after a year. Julio Jones, gone after a year. A.J. Green, gone after a year. Marcus Lattimore, gone after a year. If all the best players are gone, how does that not lower the overall quality of play?
Click to expand...
It's not even debatable.
 
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Let's take your hypothetical as a given. We still have to assume that the #1 through #5 players from 30 years ago are better than the #3 through #7 guys today. With a much larger talent pool and more training resources I don't know that this is the case.

If you take the 42% of world class sprinters today that range between the 84th and 42nd percentile and measured them against the top 42% of world class sprinters 30 years ago, which group is going to have a better average time?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any question that average skill level has improved across the board, in all sports. The problem is that we're not interested in average skill level. We're interested in top-level competition, which is driven by elite-level talent. While the average world-class athlete is certainly faster and stronger than his counterpart 30 years ago, how would the Olympics compare if none of the top 10 percent of athletes ever competed?

So while the midpoint of the bell curve of basketball skill level may well have moved up, the top end of the curve has been cut off. I have no doubt that basketball at the Ivy League and CAA level is better than ever. But where we care about it -- March Madness, the Final Four -- we've lost the elite, seasoned players that use to drive the highest level of competition.
 
#38
#38
Vercingetorix said:
I don't think there's any question that average skill level has improved across the board, in all sports. The problem is that we're not interested in average skill level. We're interested in top-level competition, which is driven by elite-level talent. While the average world-class athlete is certainly faster and stronger than his counterpart 30 years ago, how would the Olympics compare if none of the top 10 percent of athletes ever competed?

So while the midpoint of the bell curve of basketball skill level may well have moved up, the top end of the curve has been cut off. I have no doubt that basketball at the Ivy League and CAA level is better than ever. But where we care about it -- March Madness, the Final Four -- we've lost the elite, seasoned players that use to drive the highest level of competition.
Click to expand...

So I guess we agree, but you value top tier talent and I value overall talent.
 
#39
#39
GAVol said:
You realize that at age 19, Jordan hit the game winning shot in the NCAA final?
Click to expand...

Yes I realize that. He was a very good college player, but my point is nobody thought this skinny kid who averaged 20 ppg would turn out be not only an all-time great, but possibly the all-time greatest.
 
#40
#40
pl3 said:
Fundamentals, yes. But individual, one on one, skills are the basis for AAU camps and tournaments. They don't play D either. College coaches don't focus on individual skills as much. That's why guys like Bilas said Hopson had the best skill set this summer while doing drills at Lebron's camp. (I think it was Lebrons) The college game just doesn't translate well to the pro game. If they didn't have the freshman rule, outside of int'l players, the top 10-15 picks each year would be AAU camp and team studs.
Click to expand...

Yea AAU coaches are teaching reverse pivots, drop steps, ball fakes, the proper way to box out, anything about team defense, how to set screens, how to read a screen...

You can send your kids to the local car dealer pimping out local kids and see how well he prepares his kids for the NBA and I'll stick with a legit college coach.

Which has nothing to do with what the AAU coaches are "teaching" their players.
 
#41
#41
nbakerld said:
So I guess we agree, but you value top tier talent and I value overall talent.
Click to expand...
That's still bogus in my mind. Since the top players stuck around for at least 3 years, the talent tended to be deeper.
 
#42
#42
JZVOL said:
Yea AAU coaches are teaching reverse pivots, drop steps, ball fakes, the proper way to box out, anything about team defense, how to set screens, how to read a screen...

You can send your kids to the local car dealer pimping out local kids and see how well he prepares his kids for the NBA and I'll stick with a legit college coach.

Which has nothing to do with what the AAU coaches are "teaching" their players.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you are arguing. I hate NBA and aau ball. Was involved with aau for years. I was just talking about the difference in the NBA and NCAA games, as well as the how skill sets correlate to success. An NBA scout will take a raw, long, athletic young player over a 4 yr college starter 90% of the time. It's just the way it is. Again, I think you are trying to start an argument with someone who agrees with you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
GAVol said:
That's still bogus in my mind. Since the top players stuck around for at least 3 years, the talent tended to be deeper.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The talent buried 3 deep at small forward would be in the NBA today. He'd be awaiting sophomore sporadic minutes 20 years ago.
 
#44
#44
lylsmorr said:
He's right. A) March Madness is getting worse because they are making it like bowl games, trying to include too many teams. B) Wilbon is right.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it gives everyone a chance even if they are or not the best in the NCAA, but who cares if the 4 best teams make it to the final 4 anyway.
 
#46
#46
BigPapaVol said:
Exactly. The talent buried 3 deep at small forward would be in the NBA today. He'd be awaiting sophomore sporadic minutes 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
They were talking on the radio today about the UNLV documentary and brought up this exact topic. There was a clip from the UNLV/Ga Tech semi-final matchup where Ga Tech had Anderson, Scott, Oliver and Mackey on the floor against Anthony, Scurry, Ackles, Augmon and Johnson . . . 9 out of the 10 players on the floor played in the NBA.

The top teams are just nowhere near as deep and dominant as they were 20 years ago.
 
#47
#47
nbakerld said:
So I guess we agree, but you value top tier talent and I value overall talent.
Click to expand...

Top tier talent is what used to drive college basketball. Teams used to be both really talented and experienced; now it's pretty much one or the other.

Just think about last year's Kentucky team. Three first round NBA draft picks, but they never really looked comfortable together. Imagine them with three more years playing together. We used to see teams like that in March all the time -- the Phi Slamma Jamma teams, the Patrick Ewing Georgetown teams, the North Carolina teams. Seasoned, experienced teams of NBA-quality prospects that had played together for years. The Florida team was a throwback and an anomaly; we used to see that kind of team in March almost every year.

Wilbon's argument isn't that basketball players are worse; it's that the NCAA tournament isn't as good because there aren't any great college teams anymore. Which seems indisputable.
 
#48
#48
Vercingetorix said:
Of course he's right. The best players used to stay the full four years. They'd get three years better and their bodies would get three years more mature. Now the best players are raw, scrawny 18 year olds who are gone before they even figure out what they're doing. It used to be that almost every team in the Final Four was stocked with highly talented senior leadership; now it's either/or. The guys now who stick around until their senior years are by definition not that talented.

This isn't an old man argument; it's common sense. What would happen to college football if players could go after a year? Eric Berry, gone after a year. Julio Jones, gone after a year. A.J. Green, gone after a year. Marcus Lattimore, gone after a year. If all the best players are gone, how does that not lower the overall quality of play?
Click to expand...

A voice of reason, after Kobe and Garnett skipped BBall the game changed drastically. Now everyone is one and done.
 
#49
#49
GAVol said:
They were talking on the radio today about the UNLV documentary and brought up this exact topic. There was a clip from the UNLV/Ga Tech semi-final matchup where Ga Tech had Anderson, Scott, Oliver and Mackey on the floor against Anthony, Scurry, Ackles, Augmon and Johnson . . . 9 out of the 10 players on the floor played in the NBA.
Click to expand...

and today, about 3 of them would have been around for that game.

UNLV / Arky games were similar. You had Hunt, Anthony, Augmon, Johnson and Basnight against Day, Mayberry, and Oliver Miller. Hell, UNLV / Duke was essentially an NBA game.
 
#50
#50
Vercingetorix said:
Top tier talent is what used to drive college basketball. Teams used to be both really talented and experienced; now it's pretty much one or the other.

Just think about last year's Kentucky team. Three first round NBA draft picks, but they never really looked comfortable together. Imagine them with three more years playing together. We used to see teams like that in March all the time -- the Phi Slamma Jamma teams, the Patrick Ewing Georgetown teams, the North Carolina teams. Seasoned, experienced teams of NBA-quality prospects that had played together for years. The Florida team was a throwback and an anomaly; we used to see that kind of team in March almost every year.

Wilbon's argument isn't that basketball players are worse; it's that the NCAA tournament isn't as good because there aren't any great college teams anymore. Which seems indisputable.
Click to expand...

Right again some of these people are not grasping this concept. Kobe and Garnett changed the game, nobody is loyal to a team anymore.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top