HuskyHawk
The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 35,732
- Reaction Score
- 95,436
Good point on conferences. Current conferences are much worse for fans.
Is College Basketball Better Than Ever?
- Thread starter Hunt for 7
- Start date
It's pretty good overall, but the best way to improve the landscape of college ball is to
-Enforce a strict NIL cap at a much lower figure (maybe like $100,000 max for any player) that way these kids can still get paid very well but won't be bag chasing every year since almost all schools can pay each of their players $100,000 per season, paid directly by the school. Maybe allow incentives paid by the NCAA directly for how much the team advances in the NCAA tournament to trickle down to the players, so if the player makes a deep run with his team he can triple that figure.
-Only 1 immediate eligibility transfer. Sometimes a kid makes a mistake, there's not enough playing time, the coach leaves, the player doesn't like the school, etc. That's fine. But seeing 4 jerseys in 4 years takes away from the loyalty and grit of NCAA basketball.
-Limit conference size to 12 teams max and create a massive realignment. This would allow for more fairness, competition, and allow for a better scatter of talent. Seeing the SEC and Big 12 send a gazillion mediocre teams to the tournament each year is bad for the sport.
-Ban players that have declared for the draft with an agent, former G-League/NBA players, and heavily restrict European players based on age.
-Enforce a strict NIL cap at a much lower figure (maybe like $100,000 max for any player) that way these kids can still get paid very well but won't be bag chasing every year since almost all schools can pay each of their players $100,000 per season, paid directly by the school. Maybe allow incentives paid by the NCAA directly for how much the team advances in the NCAA tournament to trickle down to the players, so if the player makes a deep run with his team he can triple that figure.
-Only 1 immediate eligibility transfer. Sometimes a kid makes a mistake, there's not enough playing time, the coach leaves, the player doesn't like the school, etc. That's fine. But seeing 4 jerseys in 4 years takes away from the loyalty and grit of NCAA basketball.
-Limit conference size to 12 teams max and create a massive realignment. This would allow for more fairness, competition, and allow for a better scatter of talent. Seeing the SEC and Big 12 send a gazillion mediocre teams to the tournament each year is bad for the sport.
-Ban players that have declared for the draft with an agent, former G-League/NBA players, and heavily restrict European players based on age.
- Joined
- May 27, 2014
- Messages
- 4,813
- Reaction Score
- 28,439
I’ll be honest, while the sport is better than it’s been for a while now, it’s not in a healthy place. Nor is college football. Nor is college in general.
Someone said it best: if UConn fans are mixed on it, imagine how a mid-major fanbase feels.
I’m not sure what the fix is. But if you ask me if college basketball means more to me now versus 20 years ago - no it doesn’t. I still enjoy it and it means a lot to me but it will never be what it was pre-NIL/conference realignment, etc.
Someone said it best: if UConn fans are mixed on it, imagine how a mid-major fanbase feels.
I’m not sure what the fix is. But if you ask me if college basketball means more to me now versus 20 years ago - no it doesn’t. I still enjoy it and it means a lot to me but it will never be what it was pre-NIL/conference realignment, etc.
Mr. French
Tremendous Individual
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,850
- Reaction Score
- 24,826
I guess it’s impossible to know, but I assume the periods where I was most invested will feel the best.
That said, my sweet spot was 90s and 2000s.
90s college hoops man…Duke/UNLV, Fab 5, Arkansas/UCLA, 96 was an incredible college season for a million reasons, AZ/UK late 90s, then UConn’s arrival.
Mid 2000s big east and ACC basketball is also incredible.
That said, my sweet spot was 90s and 2000s.
90s college hoops man…Duke/UNLV, Fab 5, Arkansas/UCLA, 96 was an incredible college season for a million reasons, AZ/UK late 90s, then UConn’s arrival.
Mid 2000s big east and ACC basketball is also incredible.
.-.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2015
- Messages
- 1,446
- Reaction Score
- 6,867
As others have said, recent success has tainted the lenses for some. Not unrelated, having a unicorn of a guy in the like of Alex Karaban, spending 4 1/2 years at the same school, is a treat that we will miss and more and more as it becomes less and less common. As a fan, I don't have the same investment in guys who are basically mercenaries as I do the likes of Karaban, Ross, & Ball. Even Stewie, who I got to see give it his all for 3 years for the name on the front of the jersey, I will eternally root for. It's not going to be the same investment as a fan without guys like this.
In fact, if the NCAA doesn't get out in front of things, while there will always be a few bluebloods, the NCAA landscape is going to mirror the big professional leagues. Regionalism what be as much of a thing. Aside from the 'too big to fail' schools in the power conferences, college is going to look like pro leagues with free agency on speed.
In fact, if the NCAA doesn't get out in front of things, while there will always be a few bluebloods, the NCAA landscape is going to mirror the big professional leagues. Regionalism what be as much of a thing. Aside from the 'too big to fail' schools in the power conferences, college is going to look like pro leagues with free agency on speed.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,633
- Reaction Score
- 37,190
Not even mid majors - think about how fans of bottom half of the BE feel, even bottom half of the ACC.
The schools that can win are defined - there will be no surprises in CBB. That 2023 F4 may as well be 30 years ago.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 18,866
- Reaction Score
- 34,213
We need someone who can Finnish.
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 2,531
- Reaction Score
- 6,275
How can these Euros, who have played "professionally" in Europe, be eligible to play college ball in the USA? Can someone please provide an explanation?
- Joined
- May 27, 2014
- Messages
- 4,813
- Reaction Score
- 28,439
Well we have G League pros now too
temery
Administrator
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 22,414
- Reaction Score
- 65,838
.-.
BGesus4
Running everywhere
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2016
- Messages
- 3,526
- Reaction Score
- 21,574
The amount of money isn’t the problem. In many ways it’s just what the market is. But the way in which it’s happening, as a free for all with no rules that anyone pays attention to, is not sustainable if you don’t want to do long term damage to the sport.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2024
- Messages
- 579
- Reaction Score
- 2,340
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction Score
- 15,092
That’s a very good question a much more complex than you think.
First of all an accurate definition of college basketball is necessary
If you define College Basketball as the roughly 350 schools that provide close to 5,000 scholarships that’s a different question than to top 50-60 top programs
Who provide less than a 1000 and least important of these
the answers are quite different
No one with even casual understanding can deny that the top programs
Spending huge amounts of money can restock rosters annually
keeping kids around long even attracting Euro pros
That should make for a better game at the top no question about it.
So far the other guys have been the sole area taking a chance and developing a high school kid . Only to see them loosing that kid which placing them in a perpetual mediocrity
Also there are already rumblings about the American HS players most without NBA delusions having a more difficult time getting a scholarship. It’s simple math.
Because with this system less scholarships will be available
What happens when these programs who have become minor league
Decide that loosing money and players annually is not for them and that maybe D3 or dropping the sport is a smarter alternative
Most conferences don’t have media deals at all and a handful have any of substance in a increasingly expensive sport
The loss of the ability of a kid to leverage athletic skills to get an education will be a national tragedy .
The institution of a massive change , which is what this is ,
Without a proper analysis of the downside risk or examination of the negative branches is plain stupid.
6
First of all an accurate definition of college basketball is necessary
If you define College Basketball as the roughly 350 schools that provide close to 5,000 scholarships that’s a different question than to top 50-60 top programs
Who provide less than a 1000 and least important of these
the answers are quite different
No one with even casual understanding can deny that the top programs
Spending huge amounts of money can restock rosters annually
keeping kids around long even attracting Euro pros
That should make for a better game at the top no question about it.
So far the other guys have been the sole area taking a chance and developing a high school kid . Only to see them loosing that kid which placing them in a perpetual mediocrity
Also there are already rumblings about the American HS players most without NBA delusions having a more difficult time getting a scholarship. It’s simple math.
Because with this system less scholarships will be available
What happens when these programs who have become minor league
Decide that loosing money and players annually is not for them and that maybe D3 or dropping the sport is a smarter alternative
Most conferences don’t have media deals at all and a handful have any of substance in a increasingly expensive sport
The loss of the ability of a kid to leverage athletic skills to get an education will be a national tragedy .
The institution of a massive change , which is what this is ,
Without a proper analysis of the downside risk or examination of the negative branches is plain stupid.
6
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,688
- Reaction Score
- 10,789
pro: feels like everyone is in the mix. offseason changes are extreme. you can go from a non-contender to contender in one offseason.
con: others have mentioned this before. there really isn't development or rebuilding anymore. schools with limited NIL lose all their good players each offseason. schools with lots of NIL still lose players. They lose anyone who didn't get opportunity to play to their satisfaction. Especially freshman. The idea of watching a young core grow into a contender over a few seasons seems like a thing of the past.
con: others have mentioned this before. there really isn't development or rebuilding anymore. schools with limited NIL lose all their good players each offseason. schools with lots of NIL still lose players. They lose anyone who didn't get opportunity to play to their satisfaction. Especially freshman. The idea of watching a young core grow into a contender over a few seasons seems like a thing of the past.
.-.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2016
- Messages
- 4,649
- Reaction Score
- 12,365
No.
The 90s were peak. The mid-2000s were also awesome.
The 90s were peak. The mid-2000s were also awesome.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,633
- Reaction Score
- 37,190
Right now we remain in the cool kid's club - that 10 programs that can fight to put together a NC level roster.
I wonder how people will feel if we fall out of that club, because I tend to feel once you're out, it's really hard to climb back these days. Case in point UK, KU.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 56,579
- Reaction Score
- 216,436
Who are these 10 programs and you're sticking a fork in Kansas and Kentucky?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,413
- Reaction Score
- 62,102
I think the last part of the last clause is incorrect. Because of instant transfers and NIL there's as strong a concentration of talent at the top of the game as there was 40 years ago, but there's also better fit among elite players. Guys like Cadeau would've logged 4 unremarkable years at UNC in generations past, while the best Walter Clayton or Cam Spencer could've hoped for was a one-weekend turn as a mid-major hero. Now, in this day and age, they were able to shop around not just for money, but for teams that needed them – that they were able to make better, and that made them better in turn.
That's an aspect of the college game that mostly didn't exist until very, very recently. Or if it did exist, it did so in the form of 18-year-old one-and-dones who were almost always in it solely to improve their draft stock, rather than team/winning concerns.
I'd personally take 2024 UConn over anyone from the 64-team era, and that concentration of talent would never have happened 35 years ago. This year's Michigan wasn't that good, but they're still imo superior to the 1989 Michigan team that won the title, while 2025 Florida would smoke, say, the 1994 Arkansas team.
In other words, the way the rules work now has made the top of the game as good as it's been in 50+ years. But has it made college basketball overall "better than ever"? It's hard to say yes to that given just about everybody's got a brand new roster every single year. To me, that makes the overall product worse.
Well said!!!!
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2019
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction Score
- 3,054
It's hard to say the '26 Michigan team would've beaten the '89 team, at least in a way to be taken as scientific evidence (it's just not possible to say either way).
The top tier of CBB is great, so long as. you're in the cool crowd. If you're not? Nope. The game's hemorrhaging out, and what's worse is people who care only have a finite amount of it to spare before they walk away.
.-.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,633
- Reaction Score
- 37,190
Not sticking a fork in, but a tough climb back. UK isn't doing it with Pope, so they'll have to nail the next coach to help them climb out. Self has lost his fastball, so same thing. When you're entire team transfers out, something isn't right. So them getting back in the NC picture will be based on who they bring in next.
I'd say those teams, as of now are:
UConn
Duke
UM
Florida
Houston
Bama
Zona (question coaching)
Illinois (question coaching)
MSU (question roster makeup)
StJ (question roster makeup)
Then you have some programs which will pull good rosters together, but you know they can't coach up - Arkansas, Louisville, Tennessee.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 56,579
- Reaction Score
- 216,436
UConn wasn't doing it with Ollie. UNC wasn't doing it with Hubert. Michigan wasn't doing it with Juwan Howard. Nova wasn't doing it with Neptune. St. John's probably wasn't even ranked since Jarvis.
You're captured by the moment.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,633
- Reaction Score
- 37,190
I'm captured by the fact there are two major variables right now - the coach & NIL. If you don't have those two, you're not winning it. Top kids want to play for coaches now, not brands. Kids want to get paid. Coaches have to be smart enough to pull together a talented, cohesive roster via multiples pipelines, more than ever.
So if your coach can't attract players, can't roster build in a complex system and doesn't have $$, you're not winning it.
The coach these days mean everything. This isn't going out on the HS circuit and developing what you can at that level - so much more randomness with that approach. Now the coaches that have this down to a science, and have a process, will win it.
So no, not the moment at all. Maybe Malone is the guy and can get UNC back there - will have to see it to believe it. Pitino is rehauling his roster in entirety annually. There are a couple really good coaches out there where the brand/NIL may not be there (Byington, McCollum).
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 56,579
- Reaction Score
- 216,436
You're absolutely captured by the moment. You think those are the top 10 programs and it will be damn hard for any other schools to break into your top 10 any time soon.
It's always been about coaching and talent, it's always meant everything.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,671
- Reaction Score
- 62,777
I'm begto think that you have the long term memory of a fruit fly.
Four of the schools you're hanging your hat on never won a title, one hasn't been to a final four since before UConn hired Jim Calhoun and a school that you dismissed as incapable (Kansas) won a title far more recently than one near the top of your list (Duke).
Yes, NIL has changed quite a few things, but it is very clear that spending money alone will not guarantee any results. We've reached a point where the biggest spenders are putting together a new jigsaw puzzle each year and guessing at how the pieces will fit. I'm very confident that this puts us at an advantage with our coach and culture while it puts puts the bulk of the spenders (St John's) at a disadvantage.
Prior to the national title game I was of the belief that Michigan would win eight out of ten games against us. After the game, I was seeing them winning five at best, and that would be with the disparity in calls.
I'm not as confident as you are that Michigan will win another during the next couple of seasons and I'm not sure St John's is going to get to where Rick wants Repole to believe he can take them.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 10,633
- Reaction Score
- 37,190
I think it will be really hard for most programs to break into being a NC contender, not being a top ten program. You tell me which coaches today you think can win a title this year?
Golden
Mays
Hurley
Scheyer is building great rosters, but shows a lack of in game execution
Oates has a very distinct system that has shown to work when he has the right mix of players
Devries - worth watching in year 2
Sampson has gotten close, but was based on a very different way of roster building - he just tried a team in the new format, and it wasn't like an old Sampson team at all. His team offense stinks, has always won by nurturing dogged defense.
Pitino hasn't shown an ability to win a OOC game. He is trending in the right direction.
Coach player attraction, coach roster building * NIL. Get the right players coming to you for the right reasons, with a great system = NC contender. I don't care about the name on the jersey. It's shown not to matter (UNC, Kansas, Kentucky).
I'm starting to think you don't recognize how much this sport has changed in just the last 2-3 years with NIL. It takes a player attractive coach and a strong roster strategist. I think that list is very short.
What programs did 20 years ago doesn't apply, at all, today. i honestly don't care much about the program name as much as I do the coach, up until the program doesn't provide competitive NIL.
No spending money alone will not win it, or else Pope would be in a great spot. Do you think Kelsey can win a title - the guy has won two tourney games in his life. Devries, Barnes and Kelsey have spent, but not quite confident in Kelsey. I do think Devries is someone to watch.
.-.