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.
First, I disagree with the overall premise. There are two ways to build a team; by being top heavy (in the way of stars) or an evenly distributed roster. Admittedly, most of my examples are “runners up”, but clearly these teams were championship caliber, but ran into a better team:
Example 1 – Detroit Pistons (early 2000s). Chauncy, Sheed and RIP Hamilton were there top three players. This was no where near the top “threesome” in the league; however, they bought into a championship system and executed.
Example 2 – Miami Heat (2006) – Top three; oft injured Shaq, young D.Wade and ……Gary Payton or Thunder Dan Marjle (kidding; I suppose PJ Brown). Not the best threesome, but they had championship leadership in Riley and bought into a winning system and took on Riley’s obsessive winning attitude.
Examples 3 Knicks of the early to mid 90s. (Ewing, John Starks and Oakley/Charles Smith/Mason). This team has one all-star who was probably the fourth best center at the time (Hakeem the Dream, Robinson, Shaq and am probably missing someone), and a bunch of over-hyped NY players that wouldn’t receive an 80 rating in EA Sport’s NBA game let alone qualify for NBA Jams. However, they again had a legendary coach in Riles and bought into a system.
The Knicks are not a Carmelo away from winning it this year; especially if they give up their roll players. Neither Melo nor Amare play ANY defense. For each game that Amare scores 30 plus, the guy he is covering scores 28 or more (whether its D. Lee, Lopez, the list goes on).
The Knicks should be patient and let Carmelo come to them via free agency where he can join a team with a full compliment of role players. The Celtics will be a year older; At that time is when the Knicks will have a realistic shot to win (and it will cost them less). Just my two cents.
…forgot to include the 2000 Sixers as a system team with no star studded top three; It was a one man show, a commitment to defense and belief in a system. Just another example of how I don’t think your top three needs to be upper echelon to win. The Knicks need to be patient and let the market come to them. They have a good thing going right now. Enjoy the ride.
KGF! Good stuff. Looks like you’re actually responding to the other posting, about trading Carmelo, but I’m glad you commented!
A few responses:
1. Good point re the Pistons. I’d argue though, that those guys are the exception to the rule. No other team has been able to follow that formula to a championship. So, I don’t think they disprove the premise.
2. Disagree re the Heat. I checked the stats — during their ’06 championship run, Shaq played in 23 games averaged 18 ppg, 9.8 boards, and shot better than 60%. He and Wade were so good that the Heat essentially had the best top 3 in the game.
3. The Knicks teams you’re talking about never got over the hump. (Trust me, I was watching.) I don’t know that they’re a model of success to follow.
4. Re: the Sixers… fair point, but I think the East in 2001 was about as bad a conference as there has been in a while. Jordan was gone from the Bulls, Ewing was gone from the Knicks, and neither LeBron nor Wade had arrived yet. The #2 seed in the East was Ray Allen’s Milwaukee squad. This year’s Eastern Conference is much tougher.
5. I’m not saying that getting Carmelo makes the Knicks the championship favorite. I’m saying they’re in a better spot if they have him, Amar’e and Raymond, and have to fill in the roster around those guys, than they are trying to figure out a better way to get the current group over the hump.
Good stuff, though! Keep me on my toes.
cool