Am I getting old or...

[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.

 

[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.