Small School Paradigm Shift.

H

Hawkcrush

Well-Known Member
I heard an arguement on the radio the other day that the one and done rule is ruining college basketball. In my opinion it has possibly made it better, but exactly how much of a real difference has it made. For instance does Duke beat Lehigh with Kyrie Irving, and if so how exactly does that make for better basketball. In my opinion there aren't all that many schools who have people do the one and done. Sure it has made somewhat of an impact like OSU being a force if Greg Oden and that pg that year stayed all four years, but pundits expect schools like OSU to win, and i turn the channel when the underdog gets demolished, not watch the entire game untill the end.

So I want to open a forum here as to what exactly people think has caused this paradigm shift where 2 #15 seeds beat the #2. And it is not like these are complete flukes these small schools have legitimate D1 players on them that IA would love to have. Like that Gabe Knutson from Urbandale. How the heck did he get out of the state? How do these small schools now attract talent that use to go the other "larger" schools.
 






I know people will disagree with me, but I think that the overall quality of basketball has improved. With all the AAU circuits and kids playing basketball year round, it seems that there are a lot more quality basketball players.

As much as I would like to see the one and done moved to a three and done ie. College football. I don't think it would change college basketball that much.

Teams like Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, NC, etc. Reload with top tier talent every year anyways. The only major difference I see is that the top tier teams have a big size advantage.

On the other hand, the smaller schools play much much more like a team ie. Murray State, Lehigh etc.

I personally think that college basketball is the most entertaining it has been in a long time minus the big name games, but the parody of these small schools is far better in my opinion.
 




College basketball, from a talent standpoint, is not very good. Thus the difference between the 2 and 15 isn't what it once was. The top 2 or 3 teams are very talented this year, but there is a large drop off after Kentucky and UNC. A lot of this can be blamed on Kentucky hoarding so many of the top freshmen each season.
 


IAJay said:
College basketball, from a talent standpoint, is not very good. Thus the difference between the 2 and 15 isn't what it once was. The top 2 or 3 teams are very talented this year, but there is a large drop off after Kentucky and UNC. A lot of this can be blamed on Kentucky hoarding so many of the top freshmen each season.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree a little here. UNC is talented, but not as talented as many other teams they have had. If you look at Florida state Athletically they match up with UNC well, at that is something you could not have said 5 years ago.

To me it has to be the growing impact of TV and AAU that is changing the game. It seems as though there is asctually more talent overall in college basketball rather than less. It just seems as though the talent at smaller schools is better than it use to be. For instance compare the athelets on St. Mary's team to Pudue's. Although Purdue won Saint Mary's in my opinion had the more athletic team, you could not have said that 5-10 years ago. Times are changing in college basketball, I just find it interesting how and why.
 


I'll post in more detail about this later, but I actually think that the one-and-done rule helps the big time power schools. It used to be that if North Carolina signed five McDonald's All-Americans one year you at least knew that they probably only had a couple scholarships to give next year. At the very least, a top recruit might be leery of signing when they now they are likely stuck behind Jimmy All-American for their first two years. Now one or more of those guys might go pro after one or two years, so they've got their pick of the cream of the crop again the next year. There's no better example of that than Kentucky.

Upsets are going to happen in the tournament or in any one-and-done type situation. But if you look at the overall picture, the same schools are getting high seeds and getting to the Final Four year after year: Michigan State, Ohio State, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse, Kansas, etc. They are losing guys after a year or two, but they aren't exactly struggling to replace them.
 


Hawkcrush said:
I have to disagree a little here. UNC is talented, but not as talented as many other teams they have had. If you look at Florida state Athletically they match up with UNC well, at that is something you could not have said 5 years ago.

To me it has to be the growing impact of TV and AAU that is changing the game. It seems as though there is asctually more talent overall in college basketball rather than less. It just seems as though the talent at smaller schools is better than it use to be. For instance compare the athelets on St. Mary's team to Pudue's. Although Purdue won Saint Mary's in my opinion had the more athletic team, you could not have said that 5-10 years ago. Times are changing in college basketball, I just find it interesting how and why.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the smaller schools are better, just that the top schools are nowhere near as good as they used to be. Compare the one seeds from this year to the one seeds in the late 80's early 90's, and today's one seeds would get run out of the gym.
 


IAJay said:
College basketball, from a talent standpoint, is not very good. Thus the difference between the 2 and 15 isn't what it once was. The top 2 or 3 teams are very talented this year, but there is a large drop off after Kentucky and UNC. A lot of this can be blamed on Kentucky hoarding so many of the top freshmen each season.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. More teams have really good point guards. Basic skills like screening and blocking out equalize mid-majors with some big boys.

Syracuse should have lost their first round game if the refs make a couple decent calls in the last two minutes.

There are a ton of great long distance shooters. College players shoot way better than many nba-ers. The defense is tough.

More players are ready to go pro earlier in bball than football so let them go. the few that go one and done are just replaced each year.
 


I have no clue what you were trying to say there.

What HawkeyeMike posted is what I was trying to get across. The talent level around college basketball has been way down the last few seasons.
 


uihawk82 said:
Totally disagree. More teams have really good point guards. Basic skills like screening and blocking out equalize mid-majors with some big boys.

Syracuse should have lost their first round game if the refs make a couple decent calls in the last two minutes.

There are a ton of great long distance shooters. College players shoot way better than many nba-ers. The defense is tough.

More players are ready to go pro earlier in bball than football so let them go. the few that go one and done are just replaced each year.
Click to expand...

Yeah after reading this, I'm just going to disregard anything you say because obviously don't know what you're talking about.
 


With 12 teams into the Sweet 16...
Big Ten - 4
B EAST - 3
SEC - 2
ACC - 2
Big 12- 1

The little guy may have his day, but they don't have multiple "days" often. With the Patriot and A10 playing each other.. you will have one little guy for sure in the sweet 16 though.
 


the equalizer is not talent but experience. smaller schools have players that stay for 4 yrs and learn things a frosh doesnt know. every mid major that goes far tends to consist of 5 or 6 seniors and juniors that have been to the ncaa tourney before. then you put with that that those teams focus on defense because they dont have the athletic talent to get out and run with most of the big schools then you see the drop off.

look at what gatens did at the end of the yr to try to get to the postseason. seniors do those things not frosh. outside of syracuse with anthony what teams have ever been frosh lead and won? you need upperclassmen and the small schools keep theirs (especially their best ones) around. the kentuckys and dukes and uncs dont anymore. even ucon was lead by an upperclassmen last yr (walker) but this yr they leaned on a soph to get them to the promised land.
 


greghammel said:
With 12 teams into the Sweet 16...
Big Ten - 4
B EAST - 3
SEC - 2
ACC - 2
Big 12- 1

The little guy may have his day, but they don't have multiple "days" often. With the Patriot and A10 playing each other.. you will have one little guy for sure in the sweet 16 though.
Click to expand...

You have something of a valid point, but some schools like Butler would disagree. There are exceptions and maybe Butler/VCU have been that, time will tell.

The thing is, with the limited number of at-larger births that the mid-majors get, they don't have as good a chance to put as many teams in the Sweet 16. Lately though, those teams have been going further and further, which is why I wish more got in. The other thing that just floors me is how mid-major at-large teams end up playing each other like Wichita State and VCU...so mid-majors eliminate themselves in too many cases.

The mid-majors that advance are teams that normally have experienced teams with an understanding of how to play within themselves. Missouri is a team that should feel like idiots about now given what happened to the team they lost too. Michigan/Duke not so much as Ohio has advanced now.

As I have stated before, the Mid-majors who have athletic back courts and one or two 6-7 to 6-9 athletic big men put the fear in the Major conference teams. Look at Murray St, tricking the game yesterday against Marquette. How do Murray State's bigs end up there, they aren't terrible. It is all about match-ups when it comes down to it and teams that are going to jack 3's and not play within themselves lose (See: Duke, Mizzou and Michigan especially).
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top