Tag Archives: Isiah Thomas

Crossing the Line

With only two teams left in the NCAA tournament, and a whole bunch o’ craziness behind us, I’m not really into it.   I acknowledge, at the outset, that part of this might just be sore-loser syndrome; Syracuse — my pick to win the whole thing — got bounced in the second round (and the pain was magnified by the fact that my budget for the next three months assumed that I would win my tournament pool — which, I have to admit, is nobody’s fault but my own).

Still, though, simply as a fan of the game, I’m not feeling this tournament.  I mean, I’m all for a good upset now and then to keep things exciting, but I think there’s a thin line between a good amount of upsets and complete chaos, and I think we’re now on the wrong side of that line.  Whether this is a one-time fluke, or a manifestation of a larger problem, is yet to be seen.

Unfortunately, there are some signs indicating that the college game is heading for trouble.  To get into a discussion about the state of the game, it probably makes sense to start at the foundation, and all big-time college sports are built on a shaky foundation.  The problem is that, in theory, the athletic teams are comprised of student-athletes, but, in reality, especially in men’s basketball, today’s athletes don’t seem so worried about being students.  I’m not one of those dudes who romanticizes previous eras; seasons played before the game was integrated are, in my opinion, illegitimate.  And I can find things to criticize about the game during each of the decades since.

That said, the game is not as good now as I remember it being in the past.  In my mind, the “golden era” of college hoops was the late ’70’s – mid ’80’s, when Magic, Larry, Isiah, Michael, Ewing, Mullin, and Derrick Coleman were doing their thing.  Even though a bunch of those guys left school before graduating, the sense was that they were student-athletes.  I don’t want to sound naive, and I’ll acknowledge that I have no idea whether Larry Bird, Derrick Coleman, or Chris Mullin actually went to class.  But at least they faked having a real connection to their schools.  It’s not like they showed up, played a season, and disappeared without even completing their second semesters.  Now that’s the norm at some of the big-time programs, like Kentucky.  Considering that all big-time college sports are built on a shaky foundation, consistently forcing fans to question the legitimacy of what’s being presented to them as “college basketball” is like playing with fire.

But that’s only part of the problem.  The number of guys who are capable of being “one-and-doners” is small enough that it wouldn’t have a broad impact on the game if there weren’t other issues.  But there are.  The main one, in my opinion, is that the game is so unpredictable that deep storylines don’t develop.  As I’ve blogged multiple times, the “experts” don’t have a clue what’s going on.  It’s now standard for a team that was hardly ever — if ever — ranked in the Top 25 to make the Final Four.  Some people look at this fact and see excitement, I look and see chaos.

See, I like a good storyline or two.  I like teams to emerge as powerhouses during the course of a season, and then clash in the tournament.  I like teams that get better as the season goes on, peaking around the time the tournament begins.  But when the teams who limp into the tournament wind up bullying around the teams that bullied their opponents around all season, it suggests that the season is close to meaningless.

Sure, there will always be good storylines, given the nature of the game.  When two traditional powerhouses play, it’s a story, even if they’re having sub-par seasons.  When a powerhouse plays an upstart, it’s the ol’ David v. Goliath storyline.  And when two upstarts meet in an important game, it also makes for compelling theater.

The problem is that those storylines exist by default; if that’s all the game has to offer, then it is in a damaged state.  In order to really grasp people, the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight need to include multiple teams with a few pro prospects on each, multiple traditional powerhouses, and multiple teams that have gotten fans’ attention over the course of the season.  If the teams people got familiar with while watching for months are not the teams still playing in the Elite Eight and Final Four, it fosters a sense of confusion that borders on complete chaos.

There’s plenty more venting to do, but I’ll stop. For now, I’m going to watch UCONN play Butler, and let the basketball fan inside of me enjoy a hard-fought game.  But, come next November, when the polls come out, and ESPN starts hyping the “big-time” teams it wants me to watch, I’ll be watching the NBA.  And when CBS starts broadcasting The Road To The Final Four, I’ll be in my car on The Road To Something Else To Do.  At the rate things are going, I see little reason to pay attention to the regular season.

Leave a Comment:

Continuing with the theme of talking ’bout the Knicks, because all 4 of my readers seem to like talking ’bout the Knicks…

It looks like the Knicks are good for the first time in a while, and, now that they’re good, it’s a good time to look back on the lost decade and see what we can learn about basketball from the debacle that just occurred in MSG for more than 10 years.  (Some may say that 31 games into a season is too early to declare a team a success — especially when that team is currently the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference.  To those people, I say that each of the top 7 guys on the Knicks has proven that he has two legs and a pulse, and that alone is a vast improvement over the recent Knicks teams. Whatever else one thinks about the Knicks, there’s clearly some kind of improvement taking place here.)

To me, there are three main lessons:

1.  Don’t sign lousy players to expensive, long-term contracts. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but the lesson is often overlooked, and not only by the Knicks.  To all of the NBA GM’s reading this blog right now (ahem), let me make this simple for you… the only guys worth big money for multiple years are proven stars who are at or near their peak.  Not guys who strung together a few good games in a row (e.g. Jerome James).  Not role players (e.g. Jared Jefferies).  Not players on the wrong side of the peak of their career (e.g. Allan Houston).  Not guys who might be good if they lose 30 pounds (e.g. Eddie Curry).  Hell.  I might be good if I lose 30 pounds.

Look, people.  If you’re going to have a bad team, you want to be young, and cheap.  That way, the guys you have will get better, and you’ll have room to bring in other guys.  If you’re going to have an expensive team, you want to be good immediately.  If you’re bad, and you have guys with big contracts, and you don’t have young players with talent, well, then you’re just stuck.  And then you might be bad for a looonnng time. You simply can’t afford to tie up big money on guys who haven’t proven themselves capable of being a top player on a good team.

2.  Coaching, at the NBA level, is overrated.  The Knicks had a few accomplished coaches during their decade of disaster.  For starters, they had Larry Brown, whose resume is 14 pages long has a bunch of impressive accomplishments on it. And they had Isiah, who coached the Pacers to some success, and Mike D’Antoni, who has won Coach of the Year before. None of these guys was able to turn things around. Things only started to get turned around when Felton started dishing, Gallo started swishing, and Amar’e started dunking on defenders’ faces.

To be clear, good coaching might be what separates the great teams from the good ones, or the good ones from the average ones. But a good coach can’t make a bad team a contender, so, if you’re bad, it makes much more sense to spend money on new players than it does to spend money on an expensive coach.

3. When in doubt, draft the guy who played four years in college. One of the few things the Knicks got right during the lost decade was drafting David Lee. They got him at #30. Then, this year, they got Landry Fields at #39. Both of them were four-year college players. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Am I missing anything, Knicks fans? Getting anything wrong? If so, I hope you’ll add your thoughts in the comments section.

2 Comments:

  • Ewing4Ever

    I think the other lessons are that you are better off hitting rock bottom than trying to rebuild on the fly and that you should trade all of your first draft picks, because that is the easiest way (i.e. Lee and Fields) to add talent

  • employer identification number

    Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article

Leave a Comment: