Am I getting old or...

[RayIsTheGOAT]

I think a lot of it has to do with one-and-done players. Many of the high profile teams are led by frosh/soph. Several years ago, teams were led by upperclassmen.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of teams built on Jr./Sr. leadership, but the Dukes, Kentuckys, UCLAs of the world are just a bunch raw freshmen who play hero ball trying to figure out team basketball.

That's why I enjoy watching North Carolina each year. They seem to not really get any one-and-done players, and they are just a consistently great program that play team basketball led by upperclassmen.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

Agree with this. This is certainly what Kansas is doing. One of the keys to it is to make the opponent fear your fast-break to the point that they don't crash the offensive glass. MSU did that yesterday and it killed them. All five guys ran back after every shot went up. Then you just need one good rebounding big (Lucas for KU) who doesn't even factor in your offense after his initial outlet pass.

WVU gives KU fits by pressing them, which allows them to hit the offensive glass and disrupt the break. Huggins knows how to disrupt those offenses.

 

[Lefty2one]

This thread is classic Internet commentator 2017.

Someone makes a point. Everyone just assumes the premise must be true because of selective memory, confirmation bias, and narratives, without doing any research whatsoever. A few commentators agree and then the discussion moves to reasons, who to blame, etc. People are just dying to decry AAU, one-and-dones, pick-and-roll stand around offense, too many 3s, whatever.

People say the same thing about the NFL's offenses (especially QB play), too. But this thread's premise is wrong (and so are the people who say NFL QB play is bad, too).

UCLA, who leads the country in offense according to TeamRankings, has essentially the best unadjusted offense since '98 or so? And Oklahoma St, who had the best adjusted offense according to KenPom, is the 2nd best offensive team since '02 according to KenPom.

Here's a chart to show the past 15 year history of the top offense for each year. Maybe you can see a trend? I'll see if I have the time later and can do the full team offense average rating by year to see if this is just an aberration at the top, but I have to imagine it's not.

Data

Humans learn. Humans get better over time.

College basketball offense is not immune to this truth.

PS: Chris Paul was really, really good.

This post is a classic analytics-only view from folks who think you can look at numbers for the answer to everything. First of all, you're trying to throw numbers and numbers only at a subjective discussion. You list two stats regarding historically great offenses and what? That's supposed to mean that college basketball is as entertaining today as it was 15 years ago? Numbers can be cherry-picked and twisted and used without context and be just as off-base as someone's selective memory or confirmation bias. UCLA is doing what they're doing because Lonzo Ball is the best 19 y/o passing point guard since Jason Kidd. Could you use a bigger outlier? It's not coaching, it's not strategy, it's not player development, it's not the evolution of the college game. It's a once-in-a-generation kid having a huge impact on his team.

Humans are getting better, that's why all the good players, and some of the not-so-good, are leaving earlier than ever for the pros and it's negatively impacting the college game. How do teams like Villanova '16, UConn '14, Louisville '13 and Duke '10 win titles with nary a rotational NBA player on the roster? There is less talent needed to win a title and less talent playing in the Final Four than ever before. Villanova '16 would get curb-stomped by championship teams from 15-20 years ago. It's not because individual players are worse these days, it's because the best players are on their 3rd NBA season when they could be cutting down the nets in college.

Re: the NFL, it's apples to oranges after the rules were changed to favor the offense. No point in comparing yesteryear in the NFL to today's QBs. They're practically playing a different sport today. But if you want to spin it and only look at numbers such as passing yards, TDs, completion % and how many 4,500 or 5,000 yard passers since 2005 then you aren't getting the full picture.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This post is a classic analytics-only view from folks who think you can look at numbers for the answer to everything. First of all, you're trying to throw numbers and numbers only at a subjective discussion. You list two stats regarding historically great offenses and what? That's supposed to mean that college basketball is as entertaining today as it was 15 years ago? Numbers can be cherry-picked and twisted and used without context and be just as off-base as someone's selective memory or confirmation bias. UCLA is doing what they're doing because Lonzo Ball is the best 19 y/o passing point guard since Jason Kidd. Could you use a bigger outlier? It's not coaching, it's not strategy, it's not player development, it's not the evolution of the college game. It's a once-in-a-generation kid having a huge impact on his team.

Humans are getting better, that's why all the good players, and some of the not-so-good, are leaving earlier than ever for the pros and it's negatively impacting the college game. How do teams like Villanova '16, UConn '14, Louisville '13 and Duke '10 win titles with nary a rotational NBA player on the roster? There is less talent needed to win a title and less talent playing in the Final Four than ever before. Villanova '16 would get curb-stomped by championship teams from 15-20 years ago. It's not because individual players are worse these days, it's because the best players are on their 3rd NBA season when they could be cutting down the nets in college.

Re: the NFL, it's apples to oranges after the rules were changed to favor the offense. No point in comparing yesteryear in the NFL to today's QBs. They're practically playing a different sport today. But if you want to spin it and only look at numbers such as passing yards, TDs, completion % and how many 4,500 or 5,000 yard passers since 2005 then you aren't getting the full picture.

I watched my Jayhawks yesterday and thought briefly about just how good Josh Jackson would be if he stayed, even just until Junior year. Kid is incredible. Same for Ball or Fultz or Cox.

 

[intlzncster]

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.

Probably players association, and I get their perspective. Vets want to protect themselves--make more money, so don't need 18 year olds competing for spots, especially since NBA GMs often favor developmental projection.

Also, more players get exposed in college, and that drops numbers a little even further.

 

[auror]

This post is a classic analytics-only view from folks who think you can look at numbers for the answer to everything. First of all, you're trying to throw numbers and numbers only at a subjective discussion.

Parts of it are subjective, parts of it are not. OP asserted...

most of these teams are just so inferior offensively to the teams of the past.

This is quantifiably incorrect and was piggy backed on by almost every commentator. It is the grounds by which people have made assertions about quality of play and justified their subjective opinions.

As to subjective aspects that most people consider "beautiful"...

Turnovers are ugly, right? Turnovers are at the lowest levels of recent memory.
The skill of shooting is beautiful, right? It's a bigger part of the game than it ever was.
ISO ball is ugly, right? It's trending downward in recent years.

Numbers can be cherry-picked and twisted and used without context and be just as off-base as someone's selective memory or confirmation bias.

No doubt. Were mine? I prefaced by saying I'd do a full average (couldn't find an easy source so have to calculate it myself), but cursory look suggests the trend holds for everybody, not sure the top team.

UCLA is doing what they're doing because Lonzo Ball is the best 19 y/o passing point guard since Jason Kidd. Could you use a bigger outlier? It's not coaching, it's not strategy, it's not player development, it's not the evolution of the college game. It's a once-in-a-generation kid having a huge impact on his team.

That's the point of the chart illustrating the trend, to show that it's more than just 1 data point. Did you see the trendline?

Humans are getting better, that's why all the good players, and some of the not-so-good, are leaving earlier than ever for the pros and it's negatively impacting the college game.

As demonstrated above, it's certainly not negatively impacting the scoring ability of teams, so I'm not sure what you are valuing that is being negatively influenced? Name recognition? Media narratives?

How do teams like Villanova '16, UConn '14, Louisville '13 and Duke '10 win titles with nary a rotational NBA player on the roster? There is less talent needed to win a title and less talent playing in the Final Four than ever before.

IF this is true, and I've seen nothing definitive on the subject, that means coaching must be significantly better now if they are able to achieve more efficient scoring offenses with less talent. I'd be curious to see someone research this.

Villanova '16 would get curb-stomped by championship teams from 15-20 years ago. It's not because individual players are worse these days, it's because the best players are on their 3rd NBA season when they could be cutting down the nets in college.

Talk about cherry-picking. Villanova wasn't even a 1-seed last year.

 

[NYC_HUSKY22]

The top 5 teams are pretty much as good as they were in terms of efficiency. However that second tier has improved tremendously. For example in 2011 UConn finished 10th in KenPom at +23.33 AdjEM (after winning it all). This season if they had the same efficiency numbers they'd be ranked 17th. From that same season, Arizona finished 20th and with the same efficiency numbers would be 27th this season. That second tier under the elite teams have improved. The teams at the top have the same relative quality.

Agreed - but these numbers as based off the average of D1 teams for current year. While I agree the field was not the same in 2011 - that statistic is relative to the population.

 

[Lefty2one]

As demonstrated above, it's certainly not negatively impacting the scoring ability of teams, so I'm not sure what you are valuing that is being negatively influenced? Name recognition? Media narratives?

1) The top scoring team each year isn't an indicator of average trends across the entire nation. The NCAA recently changed rules to help the offense because things were getting so brutal. Why change the rules of offensive efficiency is trending upwards? You can find a million articles and stats and discussions from the last five years about offensive issues in college basketball.

From 2013...

The fast-paced, free-flowing game that evolved from what James Naismith invented is not so fast-paced and free-flowing anymore. For the first time since 1982, college basketball teams are on pace to average less than 68 points per game.

The current average through March 4 games is 67.58, according to college basketball stat guru Ken Pomeroy. At this pace, we will experience the worst scoring year since 1952.

Pomeroy, who runs the stats site KenPom.com, has data that shows the game has been slowing down for years. The numbers on Pomeroy's site go back to 2004 and show that this season's average tempo of 66.0 possessions per game is the slowest in the last 10 seasons.

The perception is that coaches want more control, and they are slowing their offenses down to get it. Never do you see teams like Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount, who pushed the pace and averaged 122.4 points per game in 1990. Sports Illustrated's Luke Winn wrote about Westhead's Loyola system before the season, a piece that longed for those days of more possessions and more points.

Those days are gone. Northwestern State plays the fastest tempo in the country and averages 75.6 possessions per game, a snail's pace compared to the 103.6 possessions Loyola averaged in 1990, according to Winn's calculations.

In major conferences, it's even rarer to see anyone try to play fast. North Carolina, Ole Miss and DePaul are the only teams in one of the six major conferences that rank in the top 20 in possessions per game, according to Pomeroy's data.

From 2015...

Field goal percentage is down. Possessions are down. Scoring is down to just over 67 points per game, its lowest level since the early 1950s, after declining in 13 of the last 15 seasons.1 Attendance is down. Turnovers are just about the only thing in college basketball that has recently gone up.

The more things change, the more they ... get worse. College basketball is slower, more grinding, more physical and more, well, offensive than it has been in a long, long time. The 2014-15 season is shaping up to be the worst offensive season in modern history. Through Feb. 22, teams were averaging 67.1 points per game. That is the lowest average since 1952. The previous low for that span was set just two years ago. This more than reverses the gains that were made last season, after the rules committee made adjustments to clamp down on physical defense and make it harder to draw a charge. Thanks to lax enforcement by officials and a foolish decision to reverse the block/charge modification, scoring declined by 3.79 points per game. That is the steepest single-season drop on record.

Millions of people are preparing set their sights on college basketball for March Madness, but the sport is not ready for its close-up. All season long, there have been games where the winning team struggles to reach 50 points. Halftime scores in the 19-17 range have been a nightly occurrence. And because too many coaches use too many time outs, games become interminable during the last few minutes. As a result, this game is in danger of turning off casual fans while losing ground with the younger set, who have more choices than ever before.

“I have great concerns,” says Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s vice president of men’s basketball championships. “The trends are long-term and unhealthy. I think some people understand the urgency of it, but there are others who think the rhetoric is sensationalized and that it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. There are enough people concerned that there is movement to get things done.”

2)The level of talent in the college. I'm not sure how anyone can say it's better than it used to be with so many players leaving early. Not only does it hurt the top level of talent but it hurts teams that can't build in mini three-year bursts like we've done so many times.

Talk about cherry-picking. Villanova wasn't even a 1-seed last year.

Why is their seeding relevant? They won the title, I was comparing teams that won the championship.

 

[uconnbill]

The officiating has gotten worse as well. Some of the calls this weekend were bordering on unreal for a tournament game.

 

[CTBasketball]

The quality of college basketball is lightyears better if you turn off the AAC and watch better conferences.