Sure, but the discussion you jumped into the middle of was comparing the early 2000s to the current day. The 80s and 90s is a different discussion, but the complete lack of talent disparity makes that a non starter for me
Advances in strategy, training, sports science, etc.
This is an interesting point for college sports that I hadn’t thought about. The whole realignment debacle has clearly made the regional and historical rivalries worse pretty much across the board. I’m solidly in the camp that going back to the 90’s and watching even elite teams play is kind of painful because of the style of play, but the storylines were clearly better.
You said the Golden Age of college basketball is right now (current.) I said it was late 70's early 80's.
Agree to disagree
Equivalent of Flagg, Dysbantsa, Boozer, DP, M Brown staying till their junior year. College was cultivating NBA stars for 3 years back then, so we got to see them blossom in a college uniform. Hard to beat that.
The players aren't bigger, stronger, faster, jump higher than the players in the 90's and 2000's. The style of play has changed, there's more guys who can handle the ball and shoot threes really well now and they're given far more room/leeway with crab dribbles, step backs, Euro steps, foul baiting etc. The game is a lot more spaced now and much more dependent on three point shooting and more analytically advanced but these guys don't have the post moves/bang in the paint that those guys did/finishing through contact and Jalen Duren and Zion Williamson are about the only guys who looks like they could hang physically with Karl Malone, Shaq, David Robinson, Barkley, Anthony Mason, Ben Wallace, Kevin Willis etc.
I always like to say the swing men today of Edward’s, Tatum, Booker, etc. aren’t holding a candle to Kobe, T Mac, Vince, Ray and many more. Athletically, skill wise, all of that.
Probably not better rivalries, but is that really important? I'd much rather watch the 2 best teams play great games every year than it be 2 "rivals"
Nothing beats rivalry’s when both teams are great and the games are meaningful, ie Sox Yanks 2004. It sure as hell beats a Rangers/Dbacks WS. Duke and UNC when it was K and Roy. Doesn’t have to be the best two teams, just good ones in meaningful games. Sports are always best when the game means that much more. Read page 211 of Hurley’s book.
Ohio State Michigan always feels like the most important game of the year no matter the record.
Rivalries and "hating" your opponent makes sports so much better. It's why Yankees Red Sox, Ohio State Michigan, Duke UNC, Bama Auburn are still awesome and such major events whenever they play. It's probably not what it once was but those rivalries are so ingrained that they still hold up.
You guys are missing the point I'm making. As a UConn fan it might be more satisfying to watch UConn beat Syracuse in 2024 to win a national championship. What I'm saying is as a neutral observer I'd much rather watch UConn and Purdue match up as the clear 2 best teams all season. Outside of fans of those 2 specific teams I really don't think rivalries hold much power
Yeah, we disagree.
Yeah UConn is probably a bad example because it's a team we all root for. But I think you're in a pretty massive minority in rooting for rivalry matchups over the best teams. That's a very outdated mindset
Even for that 2023(?) playoffs, the Michigan Alabama Rose Bowl was a much better game than Washington and it’s not like Washington wasn’t great. They had the better QB, offense, just beat Texas etc.
You have nostalgic bias and thats okay. I’m sure I will with the next generation. Players don’t need to “bang” and hang physically with those guys you mentioned. Many of those guys now will be put in the pNr or isolated on the perimeter and taken advantage of. That’s how eras work.
I'm not. You said as a neutral supporter, you're not a neutral supporter of any UConn game. I tried to give examples of teams being in somewhat even standing playing each other and I would much rather watch "rivals" play each other in those instances.