Comments on: Good Basketball, Or Just Happy Endings?

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:47:20 +0000

Thanks for the correction keg. F Billy P.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:24:02 +0000

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.

By: Pacifist Viking

Pacifist Viking — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:32:29 +0000

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.

By: adam

adam — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:18:56 +0000

See that’s the problem keg, Billy Packer still thinks it’s 1963, so those 3 McD-AA’s aren’t even born yet.

By: keg

keg — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:09:04 +0000

UCLA has at least 3 McDonalds All Americans, Bozeman in 2001 and Afflalo/Farmar in 2004.

By: Cox

Cox — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:48:24 +0000

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?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:06:10 +0000

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.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:49:12 +0000

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.