College Hoops, is it really that great?

[cincrazy]

To answer your question: This time of year, yes. Before the end of February, no. Too many early defections for my taste.

[pedro]

I find basketball unwatchable at all levels.

[Cyclone792]

Yes, college basketball is great.

And Cyclone, you should have stuck with the Jazz. They are still a lot of fun to watch and will be until Jerry Sloan retires. Deron Williams isn't John Stockton, but he's the next best thing.

Oh I know, Williams and Boozer are a pretty nice combo similar to Stockton and Malone. The other big thing with trying to follow the Jazz while living in Cincinnati ... except for the playoffs, they're rarely on TV here.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Oh I know, Williams and Boozer are a pretty nice combo similar to Stockton and Malone. The other big thing with trying to follow the Jazz while living in Cincinnati ... except for the playoffs, they're rarely on TV here.

I lived in Utah for a few years and love to follow the Jazz. I think that's the reason I like the NBA a little bit more than college because the Jazz are the team I follow and I just love the style of ball they play. I live in LA now and go to Clippers games occasionally and its just brutal.

College hoops is fun for the atmosphere and the rivalries and the tournament but I totally agree that the quality of play is down. I really hope the new CBA turns the 1 year rule into a 2 or 3 year. I think it will help both leagues actually. Ohio State this season would be as close to unbeatable as a college team could get if there was a 3 year rule like football. Memphis, Kansas and Texas would also all be amazing.

[improbus]

I hate, hate, hate, the NBA style of basketball. The 24 second shot clock leads to more one on one, pick and roll type basketball. With the 35 second clock you get more movement, more ball reversal, more movement away from the ball.

In the NBA the games I have watched its more like LeBron has the ball, there is a high screen set, he drives to the basket and either takes the shot or passes for a 3. Most of the time there are 2-3 players standing still during the offensive possession.

I will take watching a Curry, McAlarney, Diebler, etc working their tall off running around screens, baseline to baseline to find an open shot. Good ball movement going into the post, passing the ball out trying to set up better position. I realize the talent level in the NBA is so good but count me in for watching the less talented busting their tail playing good, fundamental basketball.

Rip Hamilton is exactly that guy. But, I do understand your point.

I already pointed out my perceived strengths and weaknesses in CBB, here is the same for the NBA:
Strengths:
-Talent level - speaks for itself.
-Continuity of players/personalities - The stories and players in the NBA are fascinating in a way that college players aren't. The enigma of Kobe, Iverson's talent and negative effect, KG's personality, Duncan's steadiness. You really get to know the players.
-24 second clock. Teams have to run and get into their offense quickly.
-Rhythm. With all of the timeouts and lack of quality play, there is little rhythm to a college game. It is very herky jerky with alot of starts of stops and little flow. NBA games have a definite flow due to the speed and overall length of the games.
Weaknesses:
-Apathetic crowds: No one has the same connection to pro's that they do to colleges. Not an overly fair comparison. You could say the same for College vs. NFL to a lesser degree.
-Long Season: The regular season is too long. This leads to players and teams "mailing it in" or simply giving less effort more often. If the NBA season was 35 games like the college schedule, these guys would be going after it at a whole different level. College teams almost never go back to back on road games (except in conference tourneys). It is a grueling season and would be very difficult to maintain a high level of intensity.
-Too much one on one. It may not be a basketball purists favorite, but it is better, easier, and more productive to allow LeBron to control the basketball than Delonte West or Sasha Pavlovic. Think of the difference between the 1986 Cardinals and 2001 Athletics.
-"No Defense". This is laughable. No one can defend LeBron. Also, for every bad defensive team (like the Suns), you have the Spurs/Celtics. This is very similar to EVERY other sport (Broncos/Ravens; 2007 Rockies/2007 Reds)

[*BaseClogger*]

Teams have to run and get into their offense quickly.

What 'offense'? :

[AtomicDumpling]

I hate, hate, hate, the NBA style of basketball. The 24 second shot clock leads to more one on one, pick and roll type basketball. With the 35 second clock you get more movement, more ball reversal, more movement away from the ball.

In the NBA the games I have watched its more like LeBron has the ball, there is a high screen set, he drives to the basket and either takes the shot or passes for a 3. Most of the time there are 2-3 players standing still during the offensive possession.

I will take watching a Curry, McAlarney, Diebler, etc working their tall off running around screens, baseline to baseline to find an open shot. Good ball movement going into the post, passing the ball out trying to set up better position. I realize the talent level in the NBA is so good but count me in for watching the less talented busting their tail playing good, fundamental basketball.

The reasons you have more 1-on-1 in the NBA are 1.) there are much better offensive players in the NBA than in college (LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Paul etc) and 2.) zone defense is illegal 3.) there is a defensive 3-second rule in the NBA 4.) you can't double-team anybody that doesn't have the ball 5.) the lane or free-throw box is wider and 6.) the 3 point line is further back.

Without those rules that limit the defense it would be very hard to score in the NBA. Casual fans don't realize there are so many things defensive players are not allowed to do, so they just assume the players don't want to play defense. Big mistake.

I don't think it has much to do with the shot clock. The extra 11 seconds is just wasted in walking the ball up the court, looking at the coach to decide which play to run and trying to get a play started. But since the three point shot was added to the game there really isn't much ball movement or motion involved in college offenses anymore.

The reason the 3 point shot was added was because the game had come to be dominated by giant centers that nobody could stop. They added the 3-pointer to open up the game. But then the giant centers stopped playing college basketball altogether and went to the NBA. So now there is no good reason for having the three point shot anymore. It has contributed to a very boring brand of basketball with very little strategy or movement.

I think there is very little ball movement in college basketball. It is mostly just guys hovering around the three-point line until somebody fires up a long shot, then everybody scrambles for the long rebound after it clanks off the rim. Whichever team makes the most 3-pointers wins. The officiating is horribly inconsistent and favors the powerhouse teams. Coaches dominate everything.

College basketball is all about rah-rah school pride and very little about good basketball.

I still enjoy the NCAA tournament, but other than that it is a waste of time to watch college basketball. It is very disappointing because college hoops used to be the best sport of them all. I realize it wouldn't be fair to the athletes to force them to play for free while the university makes millions of dollars, but it would be nice for the fans if everybody had to play four years of college before going to the NBA. Those were the good old days, and those good old days were not very long ago. The game wasn't ruined until the early 90's. I am only 39 years old so it is not like I am your grandfather telling tales of his youth.