Latest Entries »

How Do College Teams Get Good?

The college hoops season is starting to get rolling, and this weekend should be an exciting one to watch. Two of the headline teams are Kansas, who is #1 in the country, and Kentucky, who is playing in the biggest game of the weekend against North Carolina.

Whenever those two teams are among the nation’s best, it makes me wonder about the nature of college hoops. Specifically, I ask myself how college teams get good. It’s a stupid question, I guess, but I don’t know the answer.

The reason that Kansas and Kentucky make me ask the question is that they are two schools that I think of as drawing students from rural areas, yet they regularly recruit basketball players from urban areas.

I’m not knocking either school; I’ve never visited either one, and have met hardly anyone who attended either one. I’m just saying that I grew up outside of New York City, lived in three of the nation’s biggest cities (NY, LA, and Philly), and never met anyone who moved from one of these cities to Lawrence, Kansas, or Lexington, Kentucky. Maybe I’m ignorant, but I know of no group of people who consistently move from big cities to either of those places EXCEPT for 18 year olds who play basketball at the highest level.

According to the University of Kansas’s website, 74% of its students are from the state of Kansas. Yet, Paul Pierce wound up at Kansas from Inglewood, CA (called “IngleHOOD” by a rapper I listen to). Tayshaun Prince wound up at Kentucky from Compton. Yes, from Compton to Kentucky.

Who makes that move, other than talented basketball players? I’ve heard Snoop Dogg rap lots of things about Compton, I never heard him refer to a large segment of the population that typically picks up and moves to Kentucky. (Just think of the lyric… “With so much drama in the L-B-C, it’s kind of hard being Snoop D-O-double-G, so I picked up and moved out to Ken-tu-cky.”) Yet, the Kentucky basketball program recruits star players from Compton.
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why this happens?

Whenever I talk to people about how these schools recruit guys from big cities, I inevitably get two answers: tradition and coaching. I don’t think either answer suffices.

Tradition, the first popular answer, is not all that it’s made out to be. Sure, Kansas can claim an excellent “tradition” that includes Wilt Chamberlain, but are 18-year-olds from Chicago in 2009 really trying to be like Wilt Chamberlain? Wilt has done lots of things that 18-year-olds from Chicago are not necessarily trying to copy. I mean, Wilt slept with 20,000 women. Are 18-year-old males really still trying to sleep with 20,000 women?

Ok, that was a bad example to prove my point. No doubt.

But the point remains: tradition ain’t what it’s cracked up to be. When you look at the college teams with the most wins in men’s Division 1, the top 10 includes Temple, St. John’s, and Penn. With all due respect to the Quakers, none of those schools has fielded a premiere team for a looong time.

Coaching, the second popular answer, ain’t all that it’s made out to be, either. It’s important, but it’s not like a good coach will necessarily bring success to his program. Bob Knight, the winningest coach of all time, couldn’t get Texas Tech off the ground. Tubby Smith won a championship at Kentucky and looked like a hero. A few years later, after some not-so-fantastic seasons, he was looking for a new coach. Just about every year, it seems like some hotshot coach leads a Cinderella team to a win or two in the tournament, and then gets a job at a “big-time” program. These hotshot coaches often don’t do much of anything. Remember Stan Heath, who was a hotshot leading Kent State? He went to Arkansas and did nothing.

Yes, “tradition” and “coaching” matter, but I don’t buy either as an explanation to what makes teams good.

Further complicating the question is the fact that sometimes programs come out of nowhere, and become powerhouses. Programs we now think of as powerhouses had almost no “tradition” to speak of only a few years ago. As of 1998, UCONN had never won a championship. It has now won 2. As of 2005, Florida had never won a championship. It has now won 2. When John Stockton went to Gonzaga, most people knew nothing about it. Now the Zags are consistently in the Sweet 16. I won’t even mention Butler.

So, in conclusion… I don’t have a conclusion. I’m just saying that college hoops fascinates me. There is much about it that I don’t get.

Leave a Comment:

Last Word About THE ANSWER

I’ve already had much to say about The Answer, and want to move onto other topics soon. After all, he is a 34-year-old who is unlikely to have an impact on the championship race.

But, now that he’s signed, it’s worth reflecting on what the process we just witnessed tells us about the NBA. As I see it, it illustrates two things that I believe to be true about the league: (1) that lots of players get overrated, and (2) too many teams are overly cautious about their personnel moves.

Regarding the first point, it was almost surreal to watch basketball commentators debate the merits of signing him. This discussion was particularly crazy. ESPN’s “panel of experts” debated six questions about the Iverson signing. One of those questions was whether Iverson should start, and, if he should start now, “what about when Lou Williams returns?”

Forgive my ignorance, but who the hell is Lou Williams? Apparently, he was a second round pick in 2005. Last year, his fourth season in the league, he averaged 12.8 points and 3 assists. That’s mediocre at best. Yet, at least some “experts” think that this guy is worth starting over AI. Most teams in the league thought that they had no spot in their starting lineups for AI, which leads to point number 2: Too many teams are overly cautious about their personnel moves.

At any moment, there are approximately 6 – 10 teams that have a legitimate chance to contend immediately. Right now, the list includes Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, the Lakers, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, and San Antonio. For the sake of argument, let’s expand it to include Miami and Portland. That’s 11 teams.

And, at any moment, there are approximately 4-6 teams that have a legitimate reason to think that they’re going to become contenders within the next 2 or 3 years, either because they have great young talent or because they expect to have lots of salary cap space soon. Right now, the teams with multiple exciting young players include Chicago, Oklahoma City, and the Clippers. As I already blogged, I’m not sold on Brandon Jennings, but for now let’s assume that he’s the Second Coming, and include Milwaukee on the list. Even though I have trouble thinking of the Knicks or the Nets as teams that should be excited about their futures, let’s include them on the list because of the money they will have to spend on free agents. That’s 6 teams.

Between those two lists, 17 teams are covered. There are 30 teams in the league, meaning that 13 of them are not on either list. With the exception of Philly, those teams all chose to stay the course rather than role the dice on a guy like THE ANSWER.

Granted, there is reason to worry about the influence that Iverson has on a team, and reason to question whether he’ll “get with the program.” I get it. I think we can all agree that he has had a Hall of Fame caliber career, and that he can sometimes be a disruptive force on a team. I acknowledge this. But, I think we can also agree that there are plenty of guys in the league who can be a disruptive force on a team, and that teams are generally willing to sign them if the potential positives are likely to outweigh the potential negatives. Maybe it’s a close call, but to think that nearly all of the teams in the league decided they’re better off without him strikes me as ridiculous.

Leave a Comment: