Is College Basketball Better Than Ever? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Is College Basketball Better Than Ever?

RuffRuff said:
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.
Expand ...
This perfectly illustrates how you're captured by the moment. You think only three coaches/programs are capable of winning a national championship. Shocker, the only three coaches you think are capable are the last three coaches/programs to win the national championship.
 
@RuffRuff

Please tell me what it was that has changed so drastically that Kansas is no longer capable of winning a national championship.
 
superjohn said:
This perfectly illustrates how you're captured by the moment. You think only three coaches/programs are capable of winning a national championship. Shocker, the only three coaches you think are capable are the last three coaches/programs to win the national championship.
Expand ...
In an effort to turn this into an actually productive offseason discussion, which coaches do we think have shown the facility for strategic roster-building and in-game tactical acumen to actually win a title in the current era (to say nothing of NIL logistics)?

The three most recent winners, obviously. I think Oats is for sure there, and Pitino as well. I know Lloyd and Underwood get pantsed late in the tourney every year but I don't think either of those guys is fundamentally broken the way, say, Mick Cronin is.

Huge TBD on Malone. I don't think Willard has the juice for 'Nova, and obviously Cooley doesn't have it for Georgetown.

I actually do think Devries has got it, but it's tough to say that about a guy who's never won a tourney game.

Cal and Arkansas for sure. Miller at Texas... I would be surprised but not totally shocked. I'm not expecting Self to get another but I wouldn't be shocked.

Who else is in the mix?
 
superjohn said:
This perfectly illustrates how you're captured by the moment. You think only three coaches/programs are capable of winning a national championship. Shocker, the only three coaches you think are capable are the last three coaches/programs to win the national championship.
Expand ...
I don't think it's just three, but I think those three coaches are a cut above the rest. I think it's a small group, but I listed out 6 with Sampson/Pitino of which possible, but leery. I've said it time and time again, when the talent consolidates at the top, the contenders are squeezed. It's going to be really clear which coaches know how to work agents/portal, work euro channels, know how to stage HS players effectively, and then actually know how to coach.
Matrim55 said:
In an effort to turn this into an actually productive offseason discussion, which coaches do we think have shown the facility for strategic roster-building and in-game tactical acumen to actually win a title in the current era (to say nothing of NIL logistics)?

The three most recent winners, obviously. I think Oats is for sure there, and Pitino as well. I know Lloyd and Underwood get pantsed late in the tourney every year but I don't think either of those guys is fundamentally broken the way, say, Mick Cronin is.

Huge TBD on Malone. I don't think Willard has the juice for 'Nova, and obviously Cooley doesn't have it for Georgetown.

I actually do think Devries has got it, but it's tough to say that about a guy who's never won a tourney game.

Cal and Arkansas for sure. Miller at Texas... I would be surprised but not totally shocked. I'm not expecting Self to get another but I wouldn't be shocked.

Who else is in the mix?
Expand ...
Devries has won some games with Drake. Good call on Miller, missed him on this one. I would definitely include him. Add him to the list.
FfldCntyFan said:
@RuffRuff

Please tell me what it was that has changed so drastically that Kansas is no longer capable of winning a national championship.
Expand ...
Have you seen Kansas the last three years? Have you seen Kansas lose every good player to the portal? Have you seen their portal haul? Have you seen KU having to see if Self was coming back? Things are trending in a very wrong direction with Kansas. My guess is that they move on from Self and grab a great coach and end up back in the picture, but in the immediate, they're not a contender. Would have to see who the next coach is to determine future contention. When a new coach comes on, it's not going to be an immediate turnaround.

I think Devries will work it in Bloomington.

I think Lloyd and Underwood are F4 good, but not NC good. You have to really be able to coach to win once you get there.

I'm not sold on Izzo, Painter in terms of how they build rosters. They'll always be good, just not good enough to win it. Cal can't coach out of a paper bag, I don't care how much talent he pulls together.

Some possibles - Odom at UVa, Byington at Vandy and McCollum at Iowa - three fantastic coaches, but simply feel like they may be held down by the juice of their brand.
 
Ruff,

Self happens to have a couple titles on his resume, something very few people can claim. He also has better financial backing than nearly anyone.

Yes, the past few years have been far below national title teams, but if you look at the entirety of Self's tenure at Kansas there have been cycles similar to what we've seen since their last title, and with these cycles Self has won it all more than once.

If I were a betting man I'd wager that less than two months into Kansas' next stellar season you'll be praising them the way you were praising Michigan for the past five and a half months.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Ruff,

Self happens to have a couple titles on his resume, something very few people can claim. He also has better financial backing than nearly anyone.

Yes, the past few years have been far below national title teams, but if you look at the entirety of Self's tenure at Kansas there have been cycles similar to what we've seen since their last title, and with these cycles Self has won it all more than once.

If I were a betting man I'd wager that less than two months into Kansas' next stellar season you'll be praising them the way you were praising Michigan for the past five and a half months.
Expand ...
He was going on and on about Painter before the season started and very early in the season. Now he's not sold on Painter in terms of how he builds rosters.
 
.-.
superjohn said:
He was going on and on about Painter before the season started and very early in the season. Now he's not sold on Painter in terms of how he builds rosters.
Expand ...
And you go on and on regarding being one of the biggest corksuckers on the board, regularly.

I think Painter can coach - I don't think he can win developing 3 star recruits in today's world. Just as I don't think Izzo can homegrow his entire roster to a title. Up until the point he can find the next Zack Edey, I think Painter's system falls short. If you're squeamish about bringing big time talent out of the portal, you have a ceiling. There comes a point you need NBA level talent to win the whole thing.
FfldCntyFan said:
Ruff,

Self happens to have a couple titles on his resume, something very few people can claim. He also has better financial backing than nearly anyone.

Yes, the past few years have been far below national title teams, but if you look at the entirety of Self's tenure at Kansas there have been cycles similar to what we've seen since their last title, and with these cycles Self has won it all more than once.

If I were a betting man I'd wager that less than two months into Kansas' next stellar season you'll be praising them the way you were praising Michigan for the past five and a half months.
Expand ...
I think Self historically is a HOF coach. I don't think Self knows what he's doing in this landscape, at all. This is likely his last year.
 
Last edited:
Hunt for 7 said:
Is college basketball currently better or worse from a fans point of view.

Are we seeing the beginning of a golden era now that players are legally getting paid?

Or was it the years starting with the 64 team NCAA TOURNAMENT?
Expand ...
For me, i see the ability for players to get paid and be able to transfer more easily as a major positive-more player control is what they deserve.

Having said that, I don’t like the “product” nearly as much. I always love seeing players develop over the years and continue to take on an increasingly larger role on their team. I like the chemistry that develops when players are together for years.

A national championship winning starting lineup that had four players who played for different teams just the year before-I don’t enjoy watching that nearly as much.

So for me-player control far outweighs what I want as a fan, but that doesn’t mean I have to enjoy the end result as much as i used to. And I don’t.
 
Well UConn is, you’re not gonna like the latest news that’s about to come out btw, regarding the tournament going to 76 teams. Pathetic it’s a 365 team tournament on March 1st.
 
Competing factors

I agree with players getting paid, but it creates a lot of business issues and transfers

Being paid I think improves the individual play (especially maximum athleticism at all positions and quality of non conference games

Do not like the power conference expansions to the level they are at. True conferences play big east style every team home and home. In football how can you consider all teams a conference if you don’t even play a team at all in the regular season?

Do not like the expansion of the tournament, even to 68. 64 teams keeps the regular season sharp and competitive. Those last 12 at large teams in the 76 team field are holistically going to be mediocre (at best). If we are going to 76 teams I think we need a longer regular season. We go to 32 next season. I think we need 35, more data and opportunity for improved resumes.

I don’t love the number of tv providers people need to watch the games.

I think the big east as a whole is going to go downhill in the next 3 years. The inflating prices for players are going to be too much for most of the conference to be able to be elite. Oddly enough I think the increase to 76 could benefit the big east the most.

I do lke multiple stations carrying the ncaa tournament.

So both eras have benefits. I’ll say now is better, slightly, but if they paid the players on the 64 team era and they showed all the games now would be worse.
 
.-.
superjohn said:
They should just invite everyone, make the regular season completely meaningless.
Expand ...

Used to be fun when matchups were announced Sunday and tinkering with brackets until that first tip on Thursday around noon.

24 of 78 team field playing Tues/Weds is a joke.
 
bendm said:

Going from 4 to 12 play in games. I don’t hate it. Hopefully that’s at least 1 extra BE bid a year.
Expand ...
I hate it, I actually don't hate the play in on Tuesday-Wednesday it's something to watch to kill time till Thursday and I wouldnt even hate the 76 teams if they just stopped at that.

The problem is expanding the tournament will keep on happening, we're are getting closer and closer to a 96 team tournament if you don't think that's coming I got a bridge to sell you.
 
.-.
There are definite good things about the sport today, especially if you're trying to make money off it. The portal has made the off-season much more interesting, which in turn should grow the sport's overall fanbase. The quality of player and team is also much better than it was ten years ago. Not to mention, it's a lot easier and more efficient for the largest brands and fanbases to assemble winning rosters.

But the concept of a kid committing to your school, overperforming, and then leaving for more money at another school (especially if it's a league rival!) is hard to swallow for most people, including myself. It's completely antithetical to what college sports were originally intended to be.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by how little pushback there's been to some of the changes. It's not just overperforming players leaving for a better payday. It's also underperforming - or even adequately performing - players being pushed out without any regard for how it might affect the player's academic goals (yes this has always happened, but not to the degree we're seeing now). We're not even pretending that this is about school anymore when it's still the most important thing for the vast majority of student-athletes.
 
RuffRuff said:
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.
Expand ...
Its kind of always been this way?
 
LetsGoUC said:
Its kind of always been this way?
Expand ...
In some ways, the "Blue Bloods" have always been that exclusive club, but there have always been outlier type programs that would find their way in. That won't be happening much anymore. Last year was 4 1's. This year was 2 1's and two teams team's widely considered the top 6-7 most of the year. Iowa was the lone tourney surprise this year, but hard to call them a cinderella with their coach and a first round draft pick, and being P4.

2024 F4 - NCSt
2023 F4 - FAU, SDSU, Miami
2019 - Va, TT, Auburn
2018 - Loyola, Chicago
2013 - Wichita St
2011 F4 - VCU, Butler

Then the Gonzaga's, Memphis, George Mason's and LSU's. Even Wisconsin's and Ohio St's.

In the moment, the 3 glamour programs's feel like:

UConn - Hurley, toughness, titles, system, offense
Michigan - Ann Arbour, Dusty, BigU
Duke - the usuals
 
Last edited:
.-.
RuffRuff said:
In the moment, the 3 glamour programs's feel like:

UConn - Hurley, toughness, titles, system, offense
Michigan - Ann Arbour, Dusty, BigU
Duke - the usuals
Expand ...
I would probably add Florida, Houston. That would be the top 5 current programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,606
Messages
4,585,331
Members
10,496
Latest member
rONIn


Top Bottom