Am I getting old or...

[tdrink]

I believe it's a byproduct of the freedom of movement era. Trying to limit contact has made the game too dependent on the officials.

 

[champs99and04]

Maybe im getting old too, but no one seems to be running any offense at all. 1 on 1, and pass around the perimeter were the norm for a bunch of teams that played today. I found myself wanting to scream at the Arkansas coach to run SOMETHING !

Seems like no one wants to set a real pick either.

WE are included here...obviously.

Such a perfect follow to my post, thank you.

 

[BlueDogs]

The ball movement is terrible. The whole game has been reduced to simulating an NBA style guard isolation with high screens with guard penetration to draw a foul or perimeter passing for a 3. Guys are generally standing around or shuffling back and forth. There are a few exceptions. I love how Gonzaga moves on O.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes "pretty basketball" because what we associate with it - crisp cutting, firm screen setting, swift ball movement - is at the mercy of talent.

Take the Spurs. They play the prettiest basketball of anyone, if you take the current millennium, but it still has to derive from somewhere, whether it's Robinson, Duncan, or now Leonard and Aldridge. All of the ping-ping-ping passing that eviscerates opposing defenses starts with their ability to win one on one. It's just like football - doesn't matter what schemes you device if you can't beat anybody on the line of scrimmage.

One of the overlooked components of college basketball - and how hard it can be to watch at times - is the absence of a defensive three seconds. Essentially, defenses have gotten more sophisticated - where teams are now able to shrink the floor, especially in the college game where the court is literally smaller - and the rules have not been tweaked accordingly. As a result, it can be easy to conflate the cause and effect because the same offense that is yielding iso buckets in the NBA is producing bricks at the college level. That's not AAU culture or a regression in coaching or Michael Jordan ruining basketball, it's just a basic matter of physics.

It's not surprising that this stuff is all amplified in crunch-time, where defenses are more locked in and less prone to the type of carelessness away from the ball that can open rifts. It's one of the reasons I've been so hard on KO the last couple years - we play in a rinky dink conference absent anybody who can consistently get their own shot against a dialed-in defense, and yet we make so many mistakes that we under-perform our talent level. It's hardly unique to us. Rhode Island just lost a game that way.

The bottom line is there comes a truth in every game where you can put it in the basket or you can't. The rest is noise.

I don't think the absence of a defensive 3 seconds call is that big a deal, because most college teams don't have a center. I think the ball movement overall is fine. I agree with Fishy that the prioritization of middle of the pack major conference schools over good mid-majors makes the overall tournament pool a little younger which can have an impact at the margin.

I think overall the individual skill level is higher than it was 20-30 years ago because of the emergence of AAU. 20 years ago, only the top players played AAU, and then it was just for a few tournaments over the summer. Today, high school bench players are playing year round, which can only make them better players. I also think most offenses today are less star-centric than they were before, although they are also more guard centric than they were before.

My earlier point about AAU is solely related to crunch time, and I see it at the youth and high school level too. With so many options to play, a lot of kids (and particularly the better players) feel like they can do whatever they have a lot more independence than players may have had 20 years ago. 25 years ago, if you were a showboat in 6th grade, it seriously impacted your ability to make the travel team in 7th grade. You couldn't afford to get on the bad side of your coach, because if you didn't play travel, you were basically done with basketball. Today, some kids skip travel altogether and play for a different AAU program every year. All that matters is how they play at tryouts. When they get to high school, their high school schedule is 25-30% of the total games they will play in a year. All of this means the players feel emboldened to do crazy stuff at crunch time. I have seen this first hand at the youth level, with players threatening to quit if they are disciplined for selfish play at the end of games. 6 years of that mentality is not going to be reversed in a year or two of college.

 

[Hankster]

Case in point... The end of both the Kentucky and UNC games; teams going for the lead with the ball late in the game and Wichita is unable to get a shot off (blocked twice) because they ran nothing and Arkansas has to throw up a prayer. Just terrible basketball in huge spots. I know both Kentucky and UNC have great athletes, etc. But my god, run a freaking offense, a set, something. It is inexcusable to not even get a shot off because you've spent 24 seconds trying to run a screen roll.

I agree Boog. Arkansas blew that game big time. UNC and Kentucky both dodged big bullets yesterday.

 

[polycom]

The issue is a simple one. Players are better but teams are worse. Watching Kansas lose to TCU is a great example of this. Under no circumstances should Kansas ever losing to TCU, unless they rested Jackson and Mason.

 

[BUConn10]

IQ is down, but I think the biggest change has been cultural.

Kids today and the community of NBA players as a whole nowadays see you as an "inferior" young NBA player/prospect the more years you spend in college. Guys are jumping over each other and declaring too soon just so they don't end up being "the 3/4 year guy in the draft". It doesn't mean these players are doomed, it's just the new trend. This drains the college talent pool much faster than the past.

Look at the NBA stars of the 80s and 90s, almost all of those guys spent at the very least 2 years in college, the majority 3 years id say. The internet and YouTube make it so that these kids start getting noticed at 16 instead of 18/19 like pre-internet days.

 

[boog204]

Some of that (maybe not that much) is the shorter 30 second shot clock. A lot of college players panic when the clock goes under 10 and nothing has developed. That means they really have about 10-14 seconds of actual offense after crossing mid-court before someone goes 1 on 1, drives into a double team or throws up a contested 3.

Well coached teams keep running their stuff and looking for mismatches. That's what Brey, Marshall and Few do very well. Calipari doesnt, because he's got enough talent on the floor that the hero 3 or forced drive often work for him.

Wichita did not run anything on the last two possessions. The guard, who hit some ballsy shots, dribbled around looking for a screen while the other three players watched him. That enabled the big (on the last play) to hard hedge and make it impossible to get a shot and on the first play they were in such desperation that they had to force a shot up.

I have just never, ever understood why a coach decides, "Ok, last possession to win/tie. Point guard, you dribble in place 35 feet from the hoop for 20 seconds. When the clock hits 10, make something happen!" Why not run your stuff where, you know, 5 people (theoretically) are working in tandem to score. If the offense works and you get a layup with 10 seconds on the clock and give the other team a possession, fine. Now play defense and stop them. How is it "better" to have to rush to make a play with little time on the clock just for the sake of denying the other team a shot to have the ball? It's becoming epidemic and cost three different teams a huge upset (and their season) b/c they took the air out of the ball and tried to run clock on the most important possession of the game.

 

[boog204]

The ball movement is terrible. The whole game has been reduced to simulating an NBA style guard isolation with high screens with guard penetration to draw a foul or perimeter passing for a 3. Guys are generally standing around or shuffling back and forth. There are a few exceptions. I love how Gonzaga moves on O.

Agree with this... I feel like there are only a handful of teams who really run nice offense anymore. ND, Duke, Kansas, Gonzaga, Michigan, UNC and some others definitely are in that category. They run stuff where seemingly five guys are doing something. Not just standing and watching. When KO first took over, he ran some nice stuff, too. Watch the first half of the championship game in 14. Screens for the screener, movement and creating mismatches. I know, we had better players then. So I'm hopeful next year that we will have some sort of semblance of an offense again. Watching Jalen work off ineffective high screens every possession is pretty hideous.

I would hope the shift to the isolation play, that the NBA created in the early 00s, would start to change given the way the Spurs and Warriors play coupled with their success. I feel old saying it, but I'm finding

 

[polycom]

IQ is down, but I think the biggest change has been cultural.

Kids today and the community of NBA players as a whole nowadays see you as an "inferior" young NBA player/prospect the more years you spend in college. Guys are jumping over each other and declaring too soon just so they don't end up being "the 3/4 year guy in the draft". It doesn't mean these players are doomed, it's just the new trend. This drains the college talent pool much faster than the past.

Look at the NBA stars of the 80s and 90s, almost all of those guys spent at the very least 2 years in college, the majority 3 years id say. The internet and YouTube make it so that these kids start getting noticed at 16 instead of 18/19 like pre-internet days.

Even Lebron has talked about how his kid is already getting recruited at 12 and he thinks it's a bit much.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Even Lebron has talked about how his kid is already getting recruited at 12 and he thinks it's a bit much.

Didn't Damon Bailey get a scholarship offer to Indiana when he was in 8th grade? This has been going on forever. Kids are also spending more time in college than they were 15 years ago. When Kobe and Garnett skipped college, it started a wave that made a mess out of the NBA for a few draft classes.

The big change in the last 20-30 years is the growth in AAU. I agree that the result is better players and probably worse teams. The ball handling you see from big guys is amazing compared to where it was 25 years ago. I think the shooting is much better than it was in the 90's. I think the defenses are much more sophisticated and aggressive than they were in the 80's, and the defensive fundamentals are much better too. Half the NBA didn't play defense in the 80's, now look at it.

Team offense takes longer to develop than defense, and that has suffered. Even a kid that plays varsity for 4 years of high school is also playing with probably 20-30 other kids over the course of the AAU seasons. It is not unusual for a kid to have 4 or 5 different coaches in a year. It is really hard for a 16 year old kid to get his timing down with any single group when he is playing with so many, and the coaches tend to simplify the offenses and make them much more free flowing.

I would put college basketball in 5 eras during my lifetime:

pre-1980 - stone age. Basketball was a niche sport only played at a high level in urban areas and a few regions of the country.

1980's - basketball goes mainstream because of Bird and Magic, better athletes forego football and baseball to play hoops, era of offense and shooting. Considered the golden age, although I think defenses were so poor that it is hard to consider this a true Golden Age.

1990's - Pat Riley effect. Defense becomes paramount. Colleges increasingly lean towards athletes over all around basketball players because they need players that can defend. Game becomes an at-the-basket and free throw game, with outside shooting considered secondary. I also think that emphasis on urban players that grow up playing without good facilities exacerbates the shooting issue. Hard to be an outside shooter on a city park rim. Shooting % declines, game gets very physical and kind of hard to watch.

2000's - Real Golden Age of college basketball. Offense catches up with defense. Beginning of AAU era of youth basketball, which meant more resources to youth basketball, including more gym time (so kids weren't only playing outside), and ultimately better coaching. More importantly, major influx of Europeans in college and in the pros brings back shooting and more structured offenses. Players showing up at college more polished with better all-around games. There were also multiple top coaches in their primes. 2000's Big East was the best conference in history.

Current - AAU Era. AAU dominating youth basketball is creating problems for colleges. Kobe has commented on this. On the other hand, the increasing influence of Europeans on the NBA is pulling colleges in the opposite direction. Michigan runs a very European looking offense. YouTube a major influence on recruiting and creating celebrities out of teenagers.

 

[QDOG5]

1. I like watching all basketball. Are there drawbacks to the NBA? Yes, but the talent level is so much better than college ball.
2. Best thing in college hoops over the last 5 years is the return of freedom of movement.
3. If I have a major gripe with college ball it is the refereeing. Not consistent enough. Too many early whistles anticipating calls.
4. College end of game execution is not good.
5. There were some good coaching and execution to watch. Wichita St. full hedge on screens and recovery was a defensive master class. UCLA offense in the 2nd half last night was beautiful. Beilein runs some good O sets. Wisconsin's methodical execution can be a pleasure to watch. Press Virginia reminds of early Calhoun teams.
6. TCU beat KU because Jamie Dixon is an excellent coach.
7. I'm sticking with UNC to win it all.
8. Man, I hope we're good next year. I love hoops but I'm dying that we are not involved in the tourney.

 

[JSM1970]

It might be right but it seems like age is a bigger deal nowadays, like a 23 year old is "old" so kids try and get into the draft no later than 21.

On Draftexpress they list age as years and months.

A place like UConn would benefit if the whole 1 year thing was lifted. Let the Fultz, Ball, Tatum, Jackson, Giles, Fox, Monk, Bam go and everyone then has the next group of players in college.

IQ is down, but I think the biggest change has been cultural.

Kids today and the community of NBA players as a whole nowadays see you as an "inferior" young NBA player/prospect the more years you spend in college. Guys are jumping over each other and declaring too soon just so they don't end up being "the 3/4 year guy in the draft". It doesn't mean these players are doomed, it's just the new trend. This drains the college talent pool much faster than the past.

Look at the NBA stars of the 80s and 90s, almost all of those guys spent at the very least 2 years in college, the majority 3 years id say. The internet and YouTube make it so that these kids start getting noticed at 16 instead of 18/19 like pre-internet days.

 

[JSM1970]

On #8, I really like the team in 2018-19 if everyone stays. That will be a veteran team with some really good players. That team could be a FF contender, next year possibly a S16

1. I like watching all basketball. Are there drawbacks to the NBA? Yes, but the talent level is so much better than college ball.
2. Best thing in college hoops over the last 5 years is the return of freedom of movement.
3. If I have a major gripe with college ball it is the refereeing. Not consistent enough. Too many early whistles anticipating calls.
4. College end of game execution is not good.
5. There were some good coaching and execution to watch. Wichita St. full hedge on screens and recovery was a defensive master class. UCLA offense in the 2nd half last night was beautiful. Beilein runs some good O sets. Wisconsin's methodical execution can be a pleasure to watch. Press Virginia reminds of early Calhoun teams.
6. TCU beat KU because Jamie Dixon is an excellent coach.
7. I'm sticking with UNC to win it all.
8. Man, I hope we're good next year. I love hoops but I'm dying that we are not involved in the tourney.

 

[UConNation]

I almost feel bad for being so predictable and making this point for the 100th time. But the NBA product is better than ever and makes college basketball almost unwatchable for me when I'm without a vested interest.

I don't understand why they can't make it so you can go pro out of HS, or stay 2-3 years if you enroll. It seems like everyone in the world is in favor of this. Obviously either the owners or the players association don't want this but to me, it would be in the best interest of both.

This x10000. I've been saying for years that the NBA/NCAA need to adopt the baseball model and say 'We'll let the kids go pro out of HS, but once you step foot on campus, you owe them 3 years minimum.' That allows kids to do what they feel is best for their situation, but also protects the 'integrity' of college sports that have been damaged by the one and done. And to be clear, I don't fault the One and Dones... they're only in college because the NBA said they have to be. I just think it's better for all parties if kids either went pro right out of HS or stayed in college for a few years.

 

[Lefty2one]

• Excessive early entry was already hurting the quality of college hoops.
• The 1-and-done circus that started in 2007 has backfired (not that the NCAA can do anything about it). The stock-piling of top recruits at UK doesn't help, plus some other blue blood programs are hurt by the continuity issues of this era.
• Conference realignment was the last foot up the rear-end. It killed a lot of great basketball rivalries and ruined the best basketball league in the country.

The talent level across the board is much lower than it used to be since so many guys are leaving early. Guys who are either end-of-the-bench NBA players or D-League/Euro guys leave college at too high of a clip. Who's been the last non-UK powerhouse team? UNC in 2009? That's nearly a decade ago. The days are gone of loaded, experienced powerhouses. Look at the lack of NBA impact players and starters (or hell, NBA players period) on recent champs...

2016 Villanova
2014 UConn
2013 Louisville
2010 Duke

You won't find a stretch like that in the 90s or 00s. There isn't a solid NBA starter in that group outside of Gorgui Dieng. Our 2004 roster alone was more impressive than those four collectively in terms of talent. A decade ago you had a UCLA team featuring Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Darren Collison and Luc Richard Mbah A Moute that didn't even reach the championship game. I still maintain that our 2011 and 2014 teams would get pasted by our 90s teams that came up short (94, 95, 96, 98). Today's game has become a battle of experienced mid-majors vs young talent.

In the current era, Kentucky is the most polarizing thing in the sport and they offer inexperienced, sloppy play and shoddy basketball IQs. I used to watch multiple non-UConn games every week. The last few years I watch maybe 5-10 games the entire season just to get a look at the top NBA prospects. I can't stomach it compared to the NBA and I used to barely watch non-Knick regular season NBA games because, let's face it, they're meaningless and the NBA doesn't really start until mid-April.

At the same time, there is also a lot of nostalgia, OP mentioned 94-09...there was a A LOT of ugly UConn basketball in that stretch.

 

[freescooter]

I think it is a little of all of the above. Plus the over reliance on the 3 pointer. So many guys/teams just look for the 3 first. Nobody runs an offense to get the ball inside. They are all fairly unsophisticated. I also think the 1-done situation is out of hand. Guys aren't at places for any reason other than to meet the 1-year requirement for the draft. And the guys who leave are not NBA level guys but d-leaguers. I'm not sold on the quality of current coaches. Who the Thompsons and Rollie's and Calhouns? Finally I don't think teams play the same type of defense anymore. Thompsons Georgetown teams. Early Calhoun teams, Arkansas, even UNLV under Tark. Man sometimes you were lucky to get the ball in bounds after a made basket when they cranked it all the way up.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Case in point... The end of both the Kentucky and UNC games; teams going for the lead with the ball late in the game and Wichita is unable to get a shot off (blocked twice) because they ran nothing and Arkansas has to throw up a prayer. Just terrible basketball in huge spots. I know both Kentucky and UNC have great athletes, etc. But my god, run a freaking offense, a set, something. It is inexcusable to not even get a shot off because you've spent 24 seconds trying to run a screen roll.

Wichita State ran a lot of very pretty offense all game until that final possession. Tons of ball movement and off the ball movement and nice passing. I don't think it's fair for anyone to call that an ugly game.

 

[Lefty2one]

I'm not sold on the quality of current coaches. Who the Thompsons and Rollie's and Calhouns?

I don't doubt that part of this is due to the fact that kids are more difficult to coach these days. Everyone is told they're a star, everyone wants tons of minutes as a freshman, etc. If something doesn't work out, it's the coach's fault and the kid will transfer elsewhere. Kids seem more fragile and parents are probably a bigger headache than ever before (not to mention handlers and AAU coaches). Even at the tail end of JC's tenure he had some issues - the 2010 and 2012 teams were probably the biggest disappointments of his career.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Agree with this... I feel like there are only a handful of teams who really run nice offense anymore. ND, Duke, Kansas, Gonzaga, Michigan, UNC and some others definitely are in that category. They run stuff where seemingly five guys are doing something. Not just standing and watching. When KO first took over, he ran some nice stuff, too. Watch the first half of the championship game in 14. Screens for the screener, movement and creating mismatches. I know, we had better players then. So I'm hopeful next year that we will have some sort of semblance of an offense again. Watching Jalen work off ineffective high screens every possession is pretty hideous.

I would hope the shift to the isolation play, that the NBA created in the early 00s, would start to change given the way the Spurs and Warriors play coupled with their success. I feel old saying it, but I'm finding

There is lots of nice offense being played by less talented teams. Did you see any of the Bucknell game? Princeton? There's a reason those teams always hang close with their much higher seeded opponents, they are generally better coached, smarter teams with inferior athletes.

I do think the success of the Warriors with a movement and passing oriented offense has impacted the college game, and we will see more of it.

 

[boog204]

Wichita State ran a lot of very pretty offense all game until that final possession. Tons of ball movement and off the ball movement and nice passing. I don't think it's fair for anyone to call that an ugly game.

Marshall run's great stuff... They did not, collectively as a team, on those last two possessions.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Marshall run's great stuff... They did not, collectively as a team, on those last two possessions.

Agreed on those possessions, but there were loads of pretty passes all game by the Shockers. But I'll credit UK here. This Kentucky team isn't as talented as some of the past, but they do play defense.

 

[boog204]

There is lots of nice offense being played by less talented teams. Did you see any of the Bucknell game? Princeton? There's a reason those teams always hang close with their much higher seeded opponents, they are generally better coached, smarter teams with inferior athletes.

I do think the success of the Warriors with a movement and passing oriented offense has impacted the college game, and we will see more of it.

Absolutely... I guess it's just a little bizarre to me that coaches (or players for that matter) at "bigger" universities cannot harness some of that half court execution by the low/mid-majors and use the advantages of their superior athletes/skills to have better half-court O. It did not happen, but I thought the early days of JT III was going to be a slight change in college basketball where you had athletic/skilled players playing the Princeton style. They were very successful and were on the cusp of great things before their recruiting fell off. I get that the players prefer the one-on-one game because it highlights the individual, but as you said, there's a very distinct reason why Princeton and other well-coached mid-majors are always a battle versus obviously superior athletes/skill players.

 

[Lefty2one]

Absolutely... I guess it's just a little bizarre to me that coaches (or players for that matter) at "bigger" universities cannot harness some of that half court execution by the low/mid-majors and use the advantages of their superior athletes/skills to have better half-court O. It did not happen, but I thought the early days of JT III was going to be a slight change in college basketball where you had athletic/skilled players playing the Princeton style. They were very successful and were on the cusp of great things before their recruiting fell off. I get that the players prefer the one-on-one game because it highlights the individual, but as you said, there's a very distinct reason why Princeton and other well-coached mid-majors are always a battle versus obviously superior athletes/skill players.

I agree with you and think part of the problem is that players at top schools have had such a huge athletic advantage throughout their lives that they aren't used to running real offensive sets. It's foreign stuff to them. Why worry about learning a multitude of offensive sets in HS when you're 17 years old, 6'8 and can dribble past your defender for a dunk any time you want? Especially in AAU where it's just a track meet and merry-go-round of one on one.

The problem with Georgetown is that the Princeton offense inherently is designed to slow the game down and keep a team who's athletically inferior in the game. It makes little sense for a team who's athletically superior to run it (and I ran as a player in HS and college). When Georgetown starts slowing the game down and trying to backdoor the likes of mighty Ohio and Florida Gulf Coast it isn't going to end well. Elements of the Princeton offense are still great, and used in the NBA, but the pace has to be picked up dramatically. The accepted rule of offense has shifted - it used to be make the defense work until they got tired/let up/made a mistake. Now it's try to get a shot off before the defense ever gets set.

Nevertheless, top end college teams have long struggled with their half court execution and I don't think that will ever change.

 

[TheChamps990411]

I think the problem is all the one and done stuff. Back in the day youd have guys like an ok4,Elton Brand or heck even going way back to guys like Webber,Marshall and Robinson who played multiple years in college when nowadays those guys are gone after 1 year. I think if they instituted a 2 year rule the quality of the game would improve. When you have your best players leaving every season your constantly bringing in new guys that have to learn the system so its hard to get that chemistry that teams that have guys that have played 2,3 or 4 years together would have. Thats why some of those 90`s and early 2000`s teams ran like well oiled machines.