college vs pro

[Noj]

It's hard to evaluate LeBron without considering that he's coasting. So is that whole team. One of the great challenges for analysts trying to evaluate players, and especially teams, is finding a way to quantify that.

actually TNT found one good way last night, they posted the records at this point in the season of the previous three teams who were going for their third straight title successfully (two Jordan teams and a Shaq/Kobe one), and Miami at 38-14 had the best record of the four by a game or two.

Still think Miami isn't going to coast to another one? The NBA is a yawnfest.

[jon abbey]

they didn't coast to one last year and they're not going to coast to one this year.

I agree that the regular season has been pretty bad this year since the East sucks after the top two, but any games between the top 10 teams in the West have been well worth seeing and the West playoffs should be great, same with the Miami/Indiana ECF and the Finals.

[walto]

I think the problem with the NBA from the college fan perspective is that the season's too long to be interesting. The teams play each other so much there's not much doubt about their actual skill level, and each playoff series is so long that big upsets in the playoffs (barring injuries) are unlikely. So if they'd just have those Western Conf series and the Eastern Conf championship series that you mentioned now and make them 3 or at most 5 game series except the finals, I think there'd be considerably more drama. In the NCAA nearly every game can surprise you. In the NBA its more of an exhibition of skills--like everything is an all star game. No game matters that much until the end of the season or the ends of the playoff series and most of those endings aren't in much doubt.

I think someone who basically wants to see the highest level of play and the best team ultimately win will have less to complain about the NBA, because drama is secondary in that kind of environment. The whole NCAA single-elimination tournament is designed for excitement of a different kind. There, everyone knows the best team could get knocked out. It's part of the fun.

Anyhow, that's why I'd rather watch W. Virginia/Iowa St. tonight than Rockets/Clippers.

[jon abbey]

yeah, the NBA season is way too long, I have been arguing that for years. the only flaw in what you're saying is that the competition just to get into the Western playoffs this year ia vicious, so the games are hence more meaningful. MIN winning in PHX last night was essential for them to keep hope alive, for instance.

[jon abbey]

(also, noj is of course strongly influenced by the unwatchable Lakers)

[crawjo]

The long season also impacts the intensity level of the players, obviously. That's one thing the college game has: tremendous intensity, because when you only play 32 games or so in a season, each one becomes that much more important.

I think the NBA would do well (if money weren't a factor, which it obviously is the only factor) if they just scheduled two games per week. I also think that the playoff series should stay at seven games. The one-and-done format works great when you are trying to get through a lot of teams in a short period of time, but for a professional league it's not ideal. I would, however, reduce the number of playoff teams to four rather than eight per conference.

These changes would make the game way more compelling, IMO.

[jon abbey]

the funny thing is that teams actually haven't been coasting this year much at all, IND especially really wants home court againt MIA after they lost in 7 last year.

I do like the two games a week idea, and maybe rather than cutting to 4 teams per conference, the top 12 teams regardless of conference make the playoffs with the top 4 getting a bye. that would be perfect this year:

12 (TOR) vs. 5 (HOU)
11 (MEM) vs. 6 (POR)
10 (PHO) vs. 7 (LAC)
9 (DAL) vs. 8 (GS)

byes: 1 (IND), 2 (OKC), 3 (MIA), 4 (SAS)

9 of the 12 would be from the West this year.

[jon abbey]

one thing about college hoops, besides the obvious skill level issues, is that the player turnover is so massive that it's hard to watch most of them develop over time (except for Aaron Craft, currently in his 17th year). so many of the best players especially are one and done, there's no time to watch them mature or stagnate, there's no chance to see someone like Goran Dragic, currently blossoming into an All-Star level talent in his sixth year in the league (although he did show signs in that 2010 playoff game against the Spurs where he scored a ridiculous 26 points in 17 minutes off the bench).

[jon abbey]

also thinking about this more…

The long season also impacts the intensity level of the players, obviously. That's one thing the college game has: tremendous intensity, because when you only play 32 games or so in a season, each one becomes that much more important.

I don't really buy this, with so many teams making the NCAA, there is huge margin for error. witness St. John's, who was terrible for the first few months, then played great for a month, now they've lost two in a row but they're still alive for an at-large bid. this isn't even factoring in the conference tournaments, which give teams a chance to make the entire preceding regular season irrelevant.

anyway, if the NCAAs maybe only took the best 16 or even 8 teams, then I'd maybe be more into the regular season, but as it is, almost any mediocre major conference team can coast into the NCAAs with their only penalty being a tough first or second round draw, usually at a fairly neutral site, no less.

[jon abbey]

I should probably spin this all off to an overarching college/pro sports thread, but in the meantime, here is a serious question: David, why do you prefer MLB to college baseball? (presuming that you do)

[crawjo]

I should probably spin this all off to an overarching college/pro sports thread, but in the meantime, here is a serious question: David, why do you prefer MLB to college baseball? (presuming that you do)

Not that many teams make the NCAA tournament. 68 teams out of 351 Division 1, which is a little less than 20 percent. That would be like only six teams making the NBA playoffs. What St. John's did this year is really pretty unusual, but for most teams the margin for error is incredibly small. If the tournament started tomorrow, GW would probably be an 8 or a 9 seed. They have three conference games left, two against inferior teams (George Mason and Fordham). Losing either one of those games could put them out of the tournament. Every game matters if you are a mid-major program. With 351 teams, you are just trying to get noticed, and getting or not getting to the tournament can make a huge difference down the road in recruiting, enrollment, etc. GW made the Sweet 16 in 1993, and it forever changed the program and even the competitiveness of the university in terms of getting students to come to the school. Until Yinka Dare came along, I didn't know anything about GW. I enrolled there in 1995, and while my reasons were complex, I think that the basketball team was definitely a part of it.

I don't care for college baseball for two reasons: 1. the quality of play is much lower and 2. they use aluminum bats. There is a much more dramatic difference between MLB and college baseball than there is between the NBA and NCAA. A high percentage of the best players go into the draft right after high school and never play in college, not to mention all the Dominican and Cuban and Mexican and Venezuelan players who you would also miss. College programs like Kentucky or Duke are basically the equivalent of AA baseball, and I DO like going to minor league baseball games. However, I wouldn't like college basketball that much if I was always focused on the top programs, because they change players every year. Kentucky is especially depressing. The great thing about the mid-majors is that the talent is solid and the players usually stay for all four years.

But the real problem with your question is that baseball is just a much more interesting game to watch when the talent level is higher, and basketball is not. Basketball is really a ridiculously simple game. It requires great athletic talent but not really specialized athletic talent. And I find that when you get to the level where everybody is 6'6" or taller and can jump and shoot, the game is not very interesting. I mean, how many times do I have to watch a team go through an offensive set where they run a pick-and-roll, or where they post a couple shooters down by the baseline at the three point line and kick it out when the defense collapses?

College basketball makes up for this because there is a much greater variety in terms of style of play, and because of the passion and intensity that the players and the fans bring to the game. How many college games have you gone to in your life? At GW, the arena is small and the place gets LOUD. It is a nightmare to play there for opposing teams, and in this respect it's like many other college gyms around the country. When I switch on the television to watch a college game, I see a lot of intensity in the arena and on the court. When I switch to an NBA game, I see an arena that often feels half asleep, with annoying sound being pumped through the speakers while the game is being played. It's a joke. If I felt it was important to watch basketball only played at the highest level, then I'd put up with it. But I don't care about the highest level when it comes to basketball. I'd be much happier watching a game in the MEAC than watching the Heat play the Pacers.

[jon abbey]

I haven't been to many college games, and none in crazy home environments, but that doesn't really have a bearing on how much I enjoy the game or not on TV.

and yeah, every game matters if you're a mid-major, but the mid-majors rarely matter once you get a few games into the tournament. anyway, we're mostly talking past each other, although it is kind of interesting. you said:

" But I don't care about the highest level when it comes to basketball. I'd be much happier watching a game in the MEAC than watching the Heat play the Pacers."

whereas I would pick watching LeBron's first six minutes against OKC* the other night over the entire season of college hoops. I'm not a big fan of watching the Pacers either, but they are really fucking good.

*not a random choice, I am not sure I have ever seen a player dominate like that against that strong of an opponent, a one man team on both ends, playing in OKC and the second best player in the league.

[jon abbey]

also I can play devil's advocate with all of your points, but it just comes down to taste in the end, so I'll stop.

[surfer]

Kiki Vandeweghe said the NBA is at least discussing enlarging the court, and adding a 4 point shot. I'm in favor of the former, but not the later. I do think the NBA game needs to change, as I've said before, I think the players have outgrown the court.

I'm in favor of a lot of what Walto and David said, shortening the season, limiting the number of teams making the playoffs, reducing the number of playoff games in the early rounds, but I'd also be in favor of the following:

Widening the court
Moving back the 3-point line
Adopting the International-sized trapezoidal zone
Reducing the number of timeouts (in both NBA and college) by half
Adopting a 2 (or 3) year minimum for players who go to college

[crawjo]

Maybe it's just because I watch so much college hoops, but the NBA three point line looks plenty far to me.

[jon abbey]

they have since said that the 4 point thing is definitely off the table, thankfully. that would wildly change the game.

Adopting a 2 (or 3) year minimum for players who go to college

I would be OK with this if it was accompanied by also allowing players to turn pro straight from high school, as the NCAA is a sickening and disgusting organization. if you choose college, then 2 or 3 years minimum, but you have the option to go straight to the pros if you are good enough and you choose to do so.

[surfer]

Agreed

[walto]

Widening the court
Moving back the 3-point line
Adopting the International-sized trapezoidal zone
Reducing the number of timeouts (in both NBA and college) by half

I agree with all of those for both the NBA and the college game. I don't know what to think about the 2-3 year minimum college stay suggestion. It's complicated, and I haven't thought about it. The other thing I'd do is eliminate the restrictions on zone defenses in the NBA.

For the college game I think it's really important to move the college 3-point line out to where the NBA line is. I've been whining for years that it's now almost a bunny for a lot of college players. These guys are big and strong: they don't need practice bras. I saw a game the other day where 14 of the first 18 shots taken by one of the teams were threes. I mean jump shots are a nice part of the game, but they're turning into the whole enchilada.

I know there's talk of shortening the shot clock by a few seconds, but I don't really care about that one way or the other. I don't see too few shots being a problem.

BTW, I went to the Indiana game in Evanston the other day, and crawjo is right, it's a much different feel from Boston Garden, where half the people are there hoping to see themselves on the scoreboard (which tells them when to cheer, etc.) For reasons I can't really defend, I'm also more comfortable with rooting for "my school" than for "my city's team." Anyhow, I know it may be mostly just my own weirdness, but I find going to a high school or college game exhilarating and going to a pro game almost a depressing experience. I don't deny that this is all basically irrational or that the level of play in the NBA is significantly better. As Jon rightly says, it's a matter of taste.

[faster]

Anyhow, that's why I'd rather watch W. Virginia/Iowa St. tonight than Rockets/Clippers.

I'd rather watch paint dry than the James Harden Rockets free throw parade.

[jon abbey]

As Jon rightly says, it's a matter of taste.

I am going to spin this off now, but after giving it more thought, I think a lot of it is down to whether you are more into balanced teamwork or the best/most exciting/enjoyable single player to watch in a game. I want to see the superfreak talents of Blake Griffin or Kevin Durant or Steph Curry or LeBron or Anthony Davis, the higher flying the overall game, the better. YMMV, obviously.