Deadspin asked yesterday if the current NCAA tournament was the result of great basketball, or just great finishes and not-so-great basketball. Could a team like George Mason get to the Final Four if teams today were as good as they were back in the day? And what was the deal with that ugly-ass Memphis/UCLA game?
It’s kind of a long answer… I believe the game this year is in just as good as shape as it was 5 years ago. I mean, I’m not thrilled with the current state of basketball in general, but this year isn’t any better or worse this year than in the past few. There’s nothing wrong with the top seeds. I think what you’re seeing is the result of a few things.
First, mid-majors are getting better and better athletes all the time, because there are more and more of them to go around now. The different between a guy who ends up at Mason and a guy who ends up at UConn might be just 2 inches in height. A few more inches on the vertical. A little more accurate jumpshot in high school. It’s not much. I’m so impressed with Mason’s post players. They’re 6′6″ or 6′7″, but they’ve got great moves in the post, nice touch, comfortable with their backs to the basket, they play patiently, the make good decisions with the ball… there aren’t a lot of guys in college basketball who can play like that, and Mason has a couple of them.
And of course, it’s easier for a team like George Mason to keep their guys together for four years than it is for Duke or UConn, who spit out NBA prospects like a PEZ dispenser. That means a lot… especially in an era where guys aren’t at all fundamentally sound to begin with. Give a good coach a bunch of guys who will work to improve, and in four years, he’ll have them playing intelligently enough to beat teams with superior talent.
As for that Memphis/UCLA game… aberration. If Memphis shot the ball at the same percentage they had all year long, we wouldn’t have heard a word about this. I think it was just an example of a young Tiger team getting nervous, tensing up, being unable to establish a rhythm, and shooting like Jerome James after a couple bottles of Mad Dog 20/20. And they dragged UCLA down with them, they played to Memphis’s level, and we had an ugly game.
Other than that, I think the basketball’s been outstanding. The teams that are playing the best are where they should be.
Adam Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 3:49 am
It’s been a fun tournament, and their have been a lot of exciting games, but the play has been really, really sloppy for the most part. Tons of turnovers, players missing wide-open shooters and cutters, missed free-throws, and no one ever blocking out. I understand that a lot of the teams these days are young or haven’t played a whole lot together (which is probably why a small school with experienced players like George Mason has done so well) but it’s still pretty painful to watch at times. The NBA gets a lot of shit for “lacking fundamentals” or whatever, but it’s lightyears ahead of the current college game.
Rob Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 9:06 am
I heard Billy “I know everything and will tell you so” Packer on the radio yesterday. The host pointed out that none of Final Four teams this year feature a McDonald’s All-American.
PTI built on this theme, as Tony argued that the high turnover of top players at the upper level forced major disruptions in those programs at least every two years. So they will be more vulnerable than in the past.
Meanwhile, George Mason has kept the same guys together for four years. They have senior leadership and everyone knows their role. They are a true team.
So it seems to me that college basketball has the potential to evolve into mid-major “teams” versus dominant superstar programs. The only problem is, the coaches of those mid-majors want the paychecks of the big boys, so they usually flee as soon as they give the smallest bit of success. Thus, retarding the program they built. (Which, of course, makes Billy “insert any male orifice” Packer happy.)
So … long story short .. I can see an argument for the bball sucking more consistently now than back in the day, when you had dynastys and better stability from top to bottom.
Cox Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Am I the only person who feels a little dirty reading a headline that includes the phrase “Happy Endings” next to the picture of pre-teen girls playing basketball? I can’t be the only one, right?
keg Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:09 am
UCLA has at least 3 McDonalds All Americans, Bozeman in 2001 and Afflalo/Farmar in 2004.
adam Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:18 am
See that’s the problem keg, Billy Packer still thinks it’s 1963, so those 3 McD-AA’s aren’t even born yet.
Pacifist Viking Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:32 am
UCLA has been winning games that way all season long. They go through long stretches of really poor offense, but keep in control of the game, or come back from behind, because their defense is just that good. The free throw shooting against Memphis was an aberration, though.
Mark Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
As someone who only watches college basketball when the tournament starts I’m not really the best judge of these things. But here is my two cents anyway. I was totally unimpressed with UConn and Villanova. UConn has a ton of talent but should have lost all of the games they won; they don’t play well as a team. And I think it says a lot about the state of college basketball that Villanova was able to win so many games playing four guards.
I have a modest proposal: move the three point line out. Too many teams rely almost exclusively on hoisting the damn things up. Also, there would be better spacing and maybe these guys would pass it into the post once in a while.
Rob Says:
March 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Thanks for the correction keg. F Billy P.