For those of you who have not read Paul Zeise's BB blog.....

[NC Panther]

Here it is - Brey's commentary on Coach Dixon as well as Zeise's opinion on JD are both good testaments to Dixon's coaching ability and his adjustment to the ACC.

Great blog imho.
http://sportsblogs.post-gazette.com...tt-Sunday-News-and-Notes/stories/201601100004

 

[Pitt-Chains]

Here it is - Brey's commentary on Coach Dixon as well as Zeise's opinion on JD are both good testaments to Dixon's coaching ability and his adjustment to the ACC.

Great blog imho.
http://sportsblogs.post-gazette.com...tt-Sunday-News-and-Notes/stories/201601100004

Thanks for posting, good stuff !

 

[IamHeisenberg]

Here it is - Brey's commentary on Coach Dixon as well as Zeise's opinion on JD are both good testaments to Dixon's coaching ability and his adjustment to the ACC.

Great blog imho.
http://sportsblogs.post-gazette.com...tt-Sunday-News-and-Notes/stories/201601100004

Nice. I wonder if there was ever an interview with a Coach where they blasted the opposing coach. The closest I ever recall is Jim Calhoun's inuendo press conferences.

 

[Jeffburgh]

A couple things:

First, I have always supported Jamie Dixon and have always said he is like Bill Cowher, who won a LOT of regular season games and division titles, but took a long time to win his super bowl, and that JD was going to get his final four or NC one day. I also seriously followed the program from the days of Clyde Vaughn,and know the banal years of Evans/Williard, and have relished Howland/Dixon.

It looks good oow and there is a real sense that this team can continue to do really good things.

But, this time last year, this was one of the worst teams in JD's career. A real mess. Putrid defensively and limited offensively.

While some of what is being said is true, the biggest factor for this team's success is what it always has been - the development of JRob, Young and Artis into upperclassman who know how to win games and are making the plays to win game games. That isn't something new, that is what JD does, get kids and develop them into darn fine college basketball players. This includes to an extent Jones and also Jeter.

NOW, the fifth year thing ... Not sure that was some kind of grand plan. Yes, JD has spoke of an been really open to it. But, did he really go into the last recruiting cycle thinking, "I am going to bring in three fifth year seniors." I think he probably was going to bring in at least one, but in the end it was as much of an issue coming up empty on prep targets past Wilson as anything.

You can't keep a program at the level JD would have a program be taking in three fifth year seniors every year or two. It still is about getting solid three and four star, top 100ish preps like JRob, Young and Artis, getting them into the program, helping them to build up their bodies and mature as people and players.

This certainly is a unique team for JD with the shooting and FT shooting. What he is doing with Artis is what he did with Patterson, and had done with Wanny - point forward type play. He has been trying to have that kind of play for a long time, it just has been spotty with not getting the right guys and developmental time with the players. Young is the kind of big man he has been trying to develop since well back into the BE years, he just never really transitioned effectively in recruiting to getting a guy like that from his time of having more beefy power forwards. He did play Nas Robinson at PF for three years.

He's a good coach and he deserves to have things fall into place because he does bust his tail recruiting and few coaches compete harder on game day. Not saying there is no intention to it. Just saying that the core of it is what he has always done, and that where things are today are some things FINALLY breaking his way - specifically that the three senior transfers are all working out, and REALLY fill in the gaps between Young, Artis, Jones, JRob and Jeter.

But, the model for sustained success is what it was primarily - solid three, four star prep recruits and development.

 

[Banned Panther]

Your premise is not debatable - the clear key to success is developing a core of players when recruiting kids who are not going to be stars immediately.

But I take issue with the Cowher analogy. Dixon has changed his stripes to spots this year. Cowher was not capable of that.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Here it is - Brey's commentary on Coach Dixon as well as Zeise's opinion on JD are both good testaments to Dixon's coaching ability and his adjustment to the ACC.

Great blog imho.
http://sportsblogs.post-gazette.com...tt-Sunday-News-and-Notes/stories/201601100004

Yeah, was going to post this yesterday. Really good stuff by Zeise and good insight.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

A couple things:

First, I have always supported Jamie Dixon and have always said he is like Bill Cowher, who won a LOT of regular season games and division titles, but took a long time to win his super bowl, and that JD was going to get his final four or NC one day. I also seriously followed the program from the days of Clyde Vaughn,and know the banal years of Evans/Williard, and have relished Howland/Dixon.

It looks good oow and there is a real sense that this team can continue to do really good things.

But, this time last year, this was one of the worst teams in JD's career. A real mess. Putrid defensively and limited offensively.

While some of what is being said is true, the biggest factor for this team's success is what it always has been - the development of JRob, Young and Artis into upperclassman who know how to win games and are making the plays to win game games. That isn't something new, that is what JD does, get kids and develop them into darn fine college basketball players. This includes to an extent Jones and also Jeter.

NOW, the fifth year thing ... Not sure that was some kind of grand plan. Yes, JD has spoke of an been really open to it. But, did he really go into the last recruiting cycle thinking, "I am going to bring in three fifth year seniors." I think he probably was going to bring in at least one, but in the end it was as much of an issue coming up empty on prep targets past Wilson as anything.

You can't keep a program at the level JD would have a program be taking in three fifth year seniors every year or two. It still is about getting solid three and four star, top 100ish preps like JRob, Young and Artis, getting them into the program, helping them to build up their bodies and mature as people and players.

This certainly is a unique team for JD with the shooting and FT shooting. What he is doing with Artis is what he did with Patterson, and had done with Wanny - point forward type play. He has been trying to have that kind of play for a long time, it just has been spotty with not getting the right guys and developmental time with the players. Young is the kind of big man he has been trying to develop since well back into the BE years, he just never really transitioned effectively in recruiting to getting a guy like that from his time of having more beefy power forwards. He did play Nas Robinson at PF for three years.

He's a good coach and he deserves to have things fall into place because he does bust his tail recruiting and few coaches compete harder on game day. Not saying there is no intention to it. Just saying that the core of it is what he has always done, and that where things are today are some things FINALLY breaking his way - specifically that the three senior transfers are all working out, and REALLY fill in the gaps between Young, Artis, Jones, JRob and Jeter.

But, the model for sustained success is what it was primarily - solid three, four star prep recruits and development.

You know, if you don't learn from experience then you are a fool. So....I have long been on that big time, 5 star recruit criticism of Jamie. But...this year's results have made me swing back to others on this board to "stay the course".

It isn't just these results. It is the Chieck Diallo's, the Khem Birch's, hell Steve Adams' of the college basketball world. Because of sites like this, we tend to think of recruiting as the end, not a means to a different end. And the end is obviously on court success, not recruiting ranking championships on some website.

So many of these One and Done's cannot play BB yet. Oh they can run and jump high, block a shot and grab a rebound, but also would be smoked by Mike Young in a game of one on one. Or Maverick Rowan who thank you, I am glad he is not here. If yinz think Sheldon Jeter shoots a lot.........well meet Maverick (must be a Beaver County thing) and the great thing about Maverick is he brings a new meaning to the concept of economy of motion, because the kid doesn't move.

Unless you have a ready made NBA star like a Melo Anthony to add to the mix, on a team like Pitt, these one and dones may do more harm than good.

 

[Swervin27]

what is crazy is that Dixon hates the graduate transfer rule. If you listen to the Dixon show (wed night I think), he always comments how this rule is ruining basketball. Gives examples of how teams spend so much time developing players and once they are ready to contribute, they are off to another school. Honestly, this seems to be a mythical example (as far as pitt is concerned anyways) but it's crazy that for someone that hates this rule so much, we really seem to benefit from it..

 

[levance2]

I honestly don't think there is much "re-inventing" as some people make it sound. Pitt is still focused on an extremely efficient offense predicated on offensive rebounding (11th nationally). Even though they are making what seems like a lot, they aren't attempting that many 3PAs (274th nationally by weighted average). They still defend to tough shots rather than forcing turnovers (313th).

If I had to explain it, I would say this is just the exact offense Dixon wishes he had every year. He might like to play a little more in the paint as opposed to the jump shots, but they make them. If you asked Dixon if he was happy trading the 188th best defense for an elite offense, he'd probably say, "No, I want both." This is just a complicated mea culpa from those who said Dixon's offense was too tightly controlled and slow and uninteresting.

Looking at the list of yearly stats on kenpom, there isn't anything that jumps out as wildly different this season except the FT%.

 

[Swervin27]

I honestly don't think there is much "re-inventing" as some people make it sound. Pitt is still focused on an extremely efficient offense predicated on offensive rebounding (11th nationally). Even though they are making what seems like a lot, they aren't attempting that many 3PAs (274th nationally by weighted average). They still defend to tough shots rather than forcing turnovers (313th).

If I had to explain it, I would say this is just the exact offense Dixon wishes he had every year. He might like to play a little more in the paint as opposed to the jump shots, but they make them. If you asked Dixon if he was happy trading the 188th best defense for an elite offense, he'd probably say, "No, I want both." This is just a complicated mea culpa from those who said Dixon's offense was too tightly controlled and slow and uninteresting.

Looking at the list of yearly stats on kenpom, there isn't anything that jumps out as wildly different this season except the FT%.

I am far from an expert, don't get too involved with the analytics of the game but just from a fan's point of view, I see a much different offense.. For years we've seen our guards to a 3 man weave at the top of the key, very little rush or urgency. This year's team is much more up tempo, very rarely using all of the shot clock. I know the clock change helps but they get after it much more on offense. Rebounding urgency is the same, cant figure out why we are so bad on defense to be honest.

I just see a lot of difference in the offense though..

 

[levance2]

They are shooting faster because they are better at shooting. I'd argue also because they are making a lot of great passes. They don't need 5-6 passes if they can make 1-2 really good passes.

My point is that a different observed result (offensive possession length going from ~#300 to #155) doesn't necessarily mean a change in philosophy. I think you'd have seen similar results if these guys played in 2011 or 2009. For example, relative tempo was #186 in 2009 and only #251 this year. Pitt actually played faster as compared to the league then than now.

 

[Jeffburgh]

You know, if you don't learn from experience then you are a fool. So....I have long been on that big time, 5 star recruit criticism of Jamie. But...this year's results have made me swing back to others on this board to "stay the course".

It isn't just these results. It is the Chieck Diallo's, the Khem Birch's, hell Steve Adams' of the college basketball world. Because of sites like this, we tend to think of recruiting as the end, not a means to a different end. And the end is obviously on court success, not recruiting ranking championships on some website.

So many of these One and Done's cannot play BB yet. Oh they can run and jump high, block a shot and grab a rebound, but also would be smoked by Mike Young in a game of one on one. Or Maverick Rowan who thank you, I am glad he is not here. If yinz think Sheldon Jeter shoots a lot.........well meet Maverick (must be a Beaver County thing) and the great thing about Maverick is he brings a new meaning to the concept of economy of motion, because the kid doesn't move.

Unless you have a ready made NBA star like a Melo Anthony to add to the mix, on a team like Pitt, these one and dones may do more harm than good.

Yep. I think the five star game is tricky. It works for Kentucky, Duke and some of the other programs because they recruit these guys regularly, a couple high four star or five stars every class. So:

They have a quicker roster turnover and can allow the kids who can play the early PT they want, and always have a couple coming into either take the spot of a kid who goes early or start in front of one who does not pan out.

The normative system is built around that. It does not mess up the chemistry of a thee star kid who was recruited with the basic agreement that if he worked and was patient he would start his last two years. Or in the case of Adams, leaving after one year kills you because had he stayed just that one more year with him and Lamar maybe gets JD a final four run ...

 

[Pittbaseball11]

They are shooting faster because they are better at shooting. I'd argue also because they are making a lot of great passes. They don't need 5-6 passes if they can make 1-2 really good passes.

My point is that a different observed result (offensive possession length going from ~#300 to #155) doesn't necessarily mean a change in philosophy. I think you'd have seen similar results if these guys played in 2011 or 2009. For example, relative tempo was #186 in 2009 and only #251 this year. Pitt actually played faster as compared to the league then than now.

I think the 2nd point is relevant, as it seems like people are confusing a change in college basketball with a wholesale change at Pitt.

Pitt's sets are the same. Seriously. The same. But the "good shots" that Dixon obsessively emphasizes are coming open much more easily due to the fact that people can't body ballhandlers out past the 3-point line or grab/bump cutters going through the lane. Pitt is play faster relative to past Pitt teams, but they're still relatively deliberate relative to the sport as a whole.

I'm interested to see where Pitt will be in 2 years (after 2016-17). I said that last year, and I still believe it. I've been much happier with recruiting beginning with the 2013 class, but also realize that a lot of Pitt's success these next couple years will be tied into this junior class. If Pitt is able to have a nice foundation in place once they leave and are back to a sort of "next man up" situation, I'll feel like the program is back on track. Things look good now, but IMO it was the turnover that really hurt this program and unfortunately that aspect of program building is still TBD.

 

[DT_PITT]

I think the 2nd point is relevant, as it seems like people are confusing a change in college basketball with a wholesale change at Pitt.

Pitt's sets are the same. Seriously. The same. But the "good shots" that Dixon obsessively emphasizes are coming open much more easily due to the fact that people can't body ballhandlers out past the 3-point line or grab/bump cutters going through the lane. Pitt is play faster relative to past Pitt teams, but they're still relatively deliberate relative to the sport as a whole.

I'm interested to see where Pitt will be in 2 years (after 2016-17). I said that last year, and I still believe it. I've been much happier with recruiting beginning with the 2013 class, but also realize that a lot of Pitt's success these next couple years will be tied into this junior class. If Pitt is able to have a nice foundation in place once they leave and are back to a sort of "next man up" situation, I'll feel like the program is back on track. Things look good now, but IMO it was the turnover that really hurt this program and unfortunately that aspect of program building is still TBD.

We are still 251 in adjusted tempo, which is still on the much slower end. But playing 68 possessions per game is the fastest team in Dixon's tenure.

 

[JS School]

We are still 251 in adjusted tempo, which is still on the much slower end. But playing 68 possessions per game is the fastest team in Dixon's tenure.

Is this because opponents have increased their tempo more than Pitt has?

 

[Pittbaseball11]

We are still 251 in adjusted tempo, which is still on the much slower end. But playing 68 possessions per game is the fastest team in Dixon's tenure.

Right, it's certainly a fast team compared to past Pitt teams, but the speed has increased in near lockstep with the sport as a whole rather than as some sort of philosophical change or an overhaul of the program's end goals/identity. The freedom of movement initiative has really opened the game up so, naturally, teams are getting to shots more easily since they can't just be mugged for 94 feet.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I honestly don't think there is much "re-inventing" as some people make it sound. Pitt is still focused on an extremely efficient offense predicated on offensive rebounding (11th nationally). Even though they are making what seems like a lot, they aren't attempting that many 3PAs (274th nationally by weighted average). They still defend to tough shots rather than forcing turnovers (313th).

If I had to explain it, I would say this is just the exact offense Dixon wishes he had every year. He might like to play a little more in the paint as opposed to the jump shots, but they make them. If you asked Dixon if he was happy trading the 188th best defense for an elite offense, he'd probably say, "No, I want both." This is just a complicated mea culpa from those who said Dixon's offense was too tightly controlled and slow and uninteresting.

Looking at the list of yearly stats on kenpom, there isn't anything that jumps out as wildly different this season except the FT%.

yep.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Right, it's certainly a fast team compared to past Pitt teams, but the speed has increased in near lockstep with the sport as a whole rather than as some sort of philosophical change or an overhaul of the program's end goals/identity. The freedom of movement initiative has really opened the game up so, naturally, teams are getting to shots more easily since they can't just be mugged for 94 feet.

Two things:

1) I think this has made for a much more palatable and interesting game. I really like the direction the sport has gone, the NHL should take notice.

3) WHY it is helped us, is we have guys who can not just knock down their own shots, but also create their own shots and also, the great passing and hitting the open man that has been a principal of Pitt BB is still there. No offense to guys like Cam Wright or Naz Robinson and many others before, but this Pitt team has guys where a 12 foot jump shot is akin to a layup, where back in the day, a 12 foot jumpshot might as well been a heave from half court as far as having a chance to fall.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Two things:

1) I think this has made for a much more palatable and interesting game. I really like the direction the sport has gone, the NHL should take notice.

3) WHY it is helped us, is we have guys who can not just knock down their own shots, but also create their own shots and also, the great passing and hitting the open man that has been a principal of Pitt BB is still there. No offense to guys like Cam Wright or Naz Robinson and many others before, but this Pitt team has guys where a 12 foot jump shot is akin to a layup, where back in the day, a 12 foot jumpshot might as well been a heave from half court as far as having a chance to fall.

I'm very interested to see where college basketball goes. I agree, the game has been a lot of fun to watch. I've always been one that hasn't cared how Pitt (or any team) plays, just as long as they win, and that's probably pissed some people off. But, certainly a more open game that still keeps things competitive is more fun to watch. I like this style of game, I just didn't want Pitt to try to play this style of game when it clearly wasn't in their skillset (i.e. they didn't have the athletes to just overwhelm opponents, even when being bumped, clutched, and grabbed -- they needed to win with execution and ball movement).

Right now, 3-point percentages are spiking back up. They may need to move the line back again in the not-too-distant future. At that point, they'll be really close to the NBA. I don't necessarily mind that just in terms of keeping the game aesthetically pleasing, but I am curious what impact that might have on parity. Taking away contact and adding a LOT of natural spacing on the floor is going to amplify the differences between elite level athletes and average athletes who get by on fundamentals.

I do think the shooting abilities have helped the offense quite a bit, although I think that players being able to create off the dribble and having cutters getting clean runs to different spots has helped somewhat as well. Hitting jump shots will always make an offense look good, but even against Purdue you saw Pitt get back into the game by attacking guys off the bounce. In past years, I'm not sure that would have been possible.

 

[wbrpanther]

We are still 251 in adjusted tempo, which is still on the much slower end. But playing 68 possessions per game is the fastest team in Dixon's tenure.

For quite some time now Pitt has had a rep of losing talented recruits because of our supposed plodding BE style of play. It now seems that Pitt is quickly acquiring a rep of getting the ball up the floor and having more freedom to shoot. Am I right to think that going forward Jamie may be able to start landing some kids he couldn't land before?

 

[DT_PITT]

Is this because opponents have increased their tempo more than Pitt has?

That is part of it.

Possessions are up for every team. For the last 6 years, our adjusted tempo ranked #297 or greater, and it's at #251 this year.

However, in 2009, we ranked #186 in tempo (although only 66 possessions). Most other years before that were in the 200's.

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I think the 2nd point is relevant, as it seems like people are confusing a change in college basketball with a wholesale change at Pitt.

Pitt's sets are the same. Seriously. The same. But the "good shots" that Dixon obsessively emphasizes are coming open much more easily due to the fact that people can't body ballhandlers out past the 3-point line or grab/bump cutters going through the lane. Pitt is play faster relative to past Pitt teams, but they're still relatively deliberate relative to the sport as a whole.

I'm interested to see where Pitt will be in 2 years (after 2016-17). I said that last year, and I still believe it. I've been much happier with recruiting beginning with the 2013 class, but also realize that a lot of Pitt's success these next couple years will be tied into this junior class. If Pitt is able to have a nice foundation in place once they leave and are back to a sort of "next man up" situation, I'll feel like the program is back on track. Things look good now, but IMO it was the turnover that really hurt this program and unfortunately that aspect of program building is still TBD.

I agree regarding turnover. Hopefully Pitt retains young talent like Wilson, Johnson and the incoming players like Manigault, Kithcart, Clark and continues to develop guys like Milligan, Luther and Nix. If so, and sprinkling in a graduate transfer here and there, Dixon and Co. should be fine.

I really do like the upside of Wilson and Johnson. And, loving what I'm reading about SR seasons of the incoming class. Nix, Luther and Milligan are wildcards though. We'll have to wait and see... Definitely projects. Clark, I assume, I being brought in to replace Smith. But, I think I read that he sustained an ACL injury or the like recently.

 

[Harve74]

I agree regarding turnover. Hopefully Pitt retains young talent like Wilson, Johnson and the incoming players like Manigault, Kithcart, Clark and continues to develop guys like Milligan, Luther and Nix. If so, and sprinkling in a graduate transfer here and there, Dixon and Co. should be fine.

I really do like the upside of Wilson and Johnson. And, loving what I'm reading about SR seasons of the incoming class. Nix, Luther and Milligan are wildcards though. We'll have to wait and see... Definitely projects. Clark, I assume, I being brought in to replace Smith. But, I think I read that he sustained an ACL injury or the like recently.

Clark was injured in the preseason and redshirted so he will have 3 years playing time here. Assuming a full recovery, he may be a little more athletic than Steling Smith, a little bigger and not quite the 3 pt. shooter.,

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Right now, 3-point percentages are spiking back up. They may need to move the line back again in the not-too-distant future. At that point, they'll be really close to the NBA. I don't necessarily mind that just in terms of keeping the game aesthetically pleasing, but I am curious what impact that might have on parity. Taking away contact and adding a LOT of natural spacing on the floor is going to amplify the differences between elite level athletes and average athletes who get by on fundamentals.

.

Sure, it might....but right now there seems to be MORE parity in college BB than ever. So many good teams. What I don't want to see is the mentality you mentioned above, because that is the NHL. The NHL has decided that contact and interference is what is best to neutralize the "talent" and because of this, the game....well it sucks as far as watching and especially in trying to sell to casual fans.

I guess what I am saying, I want to see great be great. But with the more opening up, what we have seen is a lot of these 5 star types are incredibly athletic, but a lot of the kids at mid majors and others can play basketball, can shoot and are now more free to ply their talents.

 

[Zaratoughda]

I should say here that I ALSO agree with the hand check calls being the right thing to do for the game.

It is insane that players have to do this to try to inhibit other players movement. If a player takes it to the hoop the defender's job is to stay between his man and the basket and get his hands up making for a difficult shot. THAT can be done and there is no need for hand checks.

Better for the game that they FINALLY started calling these.

 

[Zaratoughda]

Hmmm... In the game against ND you can see (at times) both Smith and Jones playing the drives correctly with the guy they were covering having a difficult shot, taking it and missing. You can ALSO see both Smith and Jones FAILING to defend this correctly and the guy scored.

THAT is our problem defensively. We CAN and DO play good D.... we just don't play good D CONSISTENTLY.

In the game against ND, the 28-10 lead was just as much about the 10 as it was about the 28. But, even with the 10, 6 of those points were Sterling Smith failing to play the drives correctly. But, in the second half he WAS playing it correctly.

If the players keep at it hopefully they can get to the point where they are playing good D consistently. Otherwise it is gonna cost us down the road as there are teams better than ND out there in no uncertain terms.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Sure, it might....but right now there seems to be MORE parity in college BB than ever. So many good teams. What I don't want to see is the mentality you mentioned above, because that is the NHL. The NHL has decided that contact and interference is what is best to neutralize the "talent" and because of this, the game....well it sucks as far as watching and especially in trying to sell to casual fans.

I guess what I am saying, I want to see great be great. But with the more opening up, what we have seen is a lot of these 5 star types are incredibly athletic, but a lot of the kids at mid majors and others can play basketball, can shoot and are now more free to ply their talents.

I agree, I think college hoops has found a really nice balance currently. The game is open, but the shorter arc still makes it possible to somewhat pack the lanes in and deter somebody from just attacking the rim at will. I'm more worried about what the higher ups might do, as they've already moved the line back once in response to a spike in percentages. If you simultaneously diminish the 3 point shot and space out the floor so that help defense are impossible, I worry that you might see more of an AAU style of game where the guys who succeed actually AREN'T the best talents and are instead just the most athletic.

Right now I think they've done very well to open the game up while still allowing for "cheating" in terms of zone and still being able to somewhat pack it in while being wary of 3-point shooters.

The NBA, really, has very little parity. I don't think that's a bad thing, per se, but I do worry about how it might impact the popularity of college hoops.

 

[Ski11585]

I agree, I think college hoops has found a really nice balance currently. The game is open, but the shorter arc still makes it possible to somewhat pack the lanes in and deter somebody from just attacking the rim at will. I'm more worried about what the higher ups might do, as they've already moved the line back once in response to a spike in percentages. If you simultaneously diminish the 3 point shot and space out the floor so that help defense are impossible, I worry that you might see more of an AAU style of game where the guys who succeed actually AREN'T the best talents and are instead just the most athletic.

Right now I think they've done very well to open the game up while still allowing for "cheating" in terms of zone and still being able to somewhat pack it in while being wary of 3-point shooters.

The NBA, really, has very little parity. I don't think that's a bad thing, per se, but I do worry about how it might impact the popularity of college hoops.

The thing about the NBA is that there are just some teams with absolutely atrocious management and no matter how the game is officiated or what rules are put in place, good management will build consistent winners. Good teams like the Spurs and Golden State can get excellent players outside the lottery. Compare that with the slop in Philadelphia or Sacramento and it's obvious why those teams are awful.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

The thing about the NBA is that there are just some teams with absolutely atrocious management and no matter how the game is officiated or what rules are put in place, good management will build consistent winners. Good teams like the Spurs and Golden State can get excellent players outside the lottery. Compare that with the slop in Philadelphia or Sacramento and it's obvious why those teams are awful.

Yes, I just more mean even in the playoffs there aren't really ridiculous upsets or anything like that. If you did a bracket and just picked chalk with the overall champ being from the Western Conference, you'd probably have filled out a pretty damn accurate bracket. Obviously some of the lack of parity in the regular season is intentional, but even among playoff teams there are maybe 5 teams out of the 16 who make it that are actual legitimate threats in a given year. You don't really have the "well, anything can happen in a 7 game series" mentality like there is in hockey or in baseball where there's a heavy amount of luck that takes place. Talent is usually going to win in the NBA, and a playoff upset is legitimately shocking.

Like I said, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think being rewarded for actually being the best is far better than being subjected to the randomness of playoff baseball, playoff hockey, or a one-and-done setting, but I more worry about college basketball's survival if that parity takes a hit. For many, the chaos and drama is about the only thing that draws them in.