Is this the beginning of the end for big time talent in college BB?

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Eventually, you will have the 18 year olds allowed to play. But this new G League route seems like a more viable path to those kids who would be "one and dones", but really don't want to go through the hypocrisy of being a pretend college student for a semester. I don't blame these kids for going this route and it is more appealing than going to Europe as a 17/18 year old.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamza...-g-league-path-was-a-no-brainer/#5349a2a36b63

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Eventually, you will have the 18 year olds allowed to play. But this new G League route seems like a more viable path to those kids who would be "one and dones", but really don't want to go through the hypocrisy of being a pretend college student for a semester. I don't blame these kids for going this route and it is more appealing than going to Europe as a 17/18 year old.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamza...-g-league-path-was-a-no-brainer/#5349a2a36b63

I don't watch college ball to watch big time talent (i.e., future NBA players) perform. I watch it for overall competitiveness and to root for Pitt to do well. So, anything that would decrease the talent gap between the blue-bloods and everyone else as this trend might do would be just fine with me.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Yeah, we didn't have much big time talent in our best years and it was still fun to watch.

 

[levance2]

Other than the money, the biggest potential benefit in this path is the ability to focus on training for the sport. It's amazing when you look at some guys like Blair and the transformation they make to their bodies when they become professional athletes.

I expect you'll still see superstars play in college because there's no way anyone in the G League gets the kind of coverage and hype that someone like Zion did at Duke. From a Pitt perspective, we might have seen someone like Adams skip college and focus on pro skill development since he was going to be drafted based on potential no matter what happened at Pitt.

 

[passedout]

I don't watch college ball to watch big time talent (i.e., future NBA players) perform. I watch it for overall competitiveness and to root for Pitt to do well. So, anything that would decrease the talent gap between the blue-bloods and everyone else as this trend might do would be just fine with me.

This is my sentiment exactly. I root for my college NOT for an individual to leave after a year to make millions and leave MY team hangin' out to dry. I say you can make a choice, if you're going the G League route then go that route. If you're going college, then sign on for 4 years, get your education and dont pay the college athletes. Those costs get passed down to the fans in the form of exhorbitant ticket plans and $5 hot dogs that not everyone wants to spend on a leisure activity.

 

[pittjas]

Less one and dones = better CBB product.

Back in the prime Big East days from say 2005-2013, there weren’t NBA all stars all over the court.

But there were old, experienced teams with guys who developed into REALLY good college players.

And for the most part, one and dones aren’t even THAT exciting to watch in college.

Zion is an outlier because he is a freak but...

Think about it... Anthony Edwards... Steven Adams... Cam Reddish.. RJ Barrett... Nico Mannion... do you ever tune in because you NEED to watch those guys? I know me personally, I care way more about the teams.

 

[palpitt]

Eventually, you will have the 18 year olds allowed to play. But this new G League route seems like a more viable path to those kids who would be "one and dones", but really don't want to go through the hypocrisy of being a pretend college student for a semester. I don't blame these kids for going this route and it is more appealing than going to Europe as a 17/18 year old.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamza...-g-league-path-was-a-no-brainer/#5349a2a36b63

No, not the end. It more likely means a more even talent spread throughout all college BB programs.

 

[thirteenNINE]

Edwards and Mannion are good example of why one and dones are pointless for two different reasons too.

On the one hand you have Edwards who went to Georgia who stunk, did okay but didn't have a great year, and is still going at the top of the lottery. What did he get out of a year of school? He played for a lousy team, didn't get any more exposure, and cost himself a year of a paycheck.

On the other hand you have Mannion who went to Arizona who was pretty good but underachieved a bit, did okay but didn't have a great year, and has now plummeted down the draft boards like a stone. What did he get out of a year of school? He played for an okay team, actually exposed his weaknesses, and cost himself being in the lottery.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

You guys are right. But let's face it, college BB and specifically the March Madness tourney became really popular in 1979. Why then? You had Magic vs Bird? Then you had the Jordan vs Ewing game. Phi Slamma Jamma and the great NC State upset. The Nova upset. All of this happened with named players.

I do think if you have teams with good players staying 3 years or more, gives you better basketball than teams with Steven Adams, or Cam Reddish and others mentioned above.

What is sad, is college basketball (at this point) is a better outlet to build a brand because more people follow and watch than the G League. (Again at this point). But the G League or something could very well develop into like the Canadian JR Hockey league, you can have young talent from Canada, Europe, South America, Africa joining US based talent and make college basketball somewhat irrelevant like college hockey. Sidney Crosby maybe wasn't paid in Juniors, but he had major endorsement contracts already and was a household name.

Basketball can very easily go this route. In fact, even easier, as you need less players. You can still have college BB, but it could really become only interest to those who are alumni of those schools again like college hockey.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think this is good for college basketball (and the players) but the format for these kids is pretty stupid.

They are playing on a G-league select team that isnt in a real league. They are going to play roughly 20 exhibition games. That is pretty stupid. They should play on a regular G-league team.

 

[NCanton Panther]

I don't watch college ball to watch big time talent (i.e., future NBA players) perform. I watch it for overall competitiveness and to root for Pitt to do well. So, anything that would decrease the talent gap between the blue-bloods and everyone else as this trend might do would be just fine with me.

Couldn’t have said it any better.

 

[Ski11585]

I think this will be good for diehard hoops fans but bad for casual interest. Big name stars bring eyeballs.

 

[Pitt3Putt]

I think this is good for college basketball (and the players) but the format for these kids is pretty stupid.

They are playing on a G-league select team that isnt in a real league. They are going to play roughly 20 exhibition games. That is pretty stupid. They should play on a regular G-league team.

Limited exposure is good for them IMO. Honestly it might be better for them if they played even less.

The guys who ride the bench in Europe or disappear for a year tend to either maintain their stock or see it rise. Darius Bazley and Terrance Ferguson were both ranked outside of the top 15 in HS and then were first rounders after a year of barely playing.

Emmanuel Mudiay wasn't great in China but maintained his draft status. Same with RJ Hampton and LaMelo Ball this year.

Anfernee Simons and Thon Maker were both pretty highly rated, skipped college, and went in the first round. Jalen Lecque got a guaranteed contract with San Antonio.

Obviously you can point to a guy like Zion who helped himself by going to college and getting a ton of exposure, but then you saw Nasir Little and Cam Reddish fall. Quentin Grimes was a top 10 kid who fell even further than them.

Exposure isn't always a good thing, IMO. Keeping a low profile and maintaining some of the shine from when you were beating up on HS and AAU teams filled with non-P5 players can be good.

 

[cease10]

You guys are right. But let's face it, college BB and specifically the March Madness tourney became really popular in 1979. Why then? You had Magic vs Bird? Then you had the Jordan vs Ewing game. Phi Slamma Jamma and the great NC State upset. The Nova upset. All of this happened with named players.

College basketball to me is now based on named programs and Cinderella upsets. Every now and then you may have a named player like a Carmelo break through, but it's more of a team game now.

I think there's been some great tournament championship moments in recent yrs like the Villanova/NC game and Nova with the winning shot. That was one of the greatest games I've personally seen. The Butler buzzer mix against Duke was classic too.

 

[cease10]

They are playing on a G-league select team that isnt in a real league. They are going to play roughly 20 exhibition games. That is pretty stupid. They should play on a regular G-league team.

The select team setup is better for the player's development. Placing these kids on random G-league teams may stunt their development. There would be no incentive for G-league teams to develop the kids, since their rights don't belong to them

NBA wants to set this program up for success, not failure. My understanding is that they're trying to model it more like an NBA Academy team that will play exhibition games against G-league teams and possibly international teams.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I think this will be good for diehard hoops fans but bad for casual interest. Big name stars bring eyeballs.

To an extent I agree. But most of these folks rarely watch more than NCAA tourney games and a few regular season games involving "blue-blood" programs. They will probably still watch some of the fall holiday tourney games from warm places and the more interesting NCAA tourney games even without future NBA stars playing.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

To an extent I agree. But most of these folks rarely watch more than NCAA tourney games and a few regular season games involving "blue-blood" programs. They will probably still watch some of the fall holiday tourney games from warm places and the more interesting NCAA tourney games even without future NBA stars playing.

Yea, regular season game TV ratings are bad. I doubt ratings drop much lower than they already are. Side note: ratings are very low partly due to there being 10 games (no exaggeration) on simultaneously on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. College Basketball needs to figure out how to play more games on Sunday nights, Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I think this will be good for diehard hoops fans but bad for casual interest. Big name stars bring eyeballs.

Exactly. Who didn't turn on a Duke game last year to watch Zion? I would love to see the ratings of Duke games this past year vs the year prior.

And yes, "diehard" basketball fans will watch an NCAA Final 4 game between Villanova and Butler, but ALL sports fans tune in to watch Magic vs Bird. Jordan/Worthy vs Ewing. That's what built college BB into the spectacle it became. It is also now waning a bit because there aren't these matchups anymore.

 

[Ski11585]

Exactly. Who didn't turn on a Duke game last year to watch Zion? I would love to see the ratings of Duke games this past year vs the year prior.

And yes, "diehard" basketball fans will watch an NCAA Final 4 game between Villanova and Butler, but ALL sports fans tune in to watch Magic vs Bird. Jordan/Worthy vs Ewing. That's what built college BB into the spectacle it became. It is also now waning a bit because there aren't these matchups anymore.

Yup. And I bet you if you polled NCAA hoops diehards and they were honest with themselves, a lot of their favorite NCAA moments (if you discount those involving their specific team) involve either great players (Curry, Kemba's run for UCONN, D Wade) or great teams filled with elite players facing off against each other.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Yup. And I bet you if you polled NCAA hoops diehards and they were honest with themselves, a lot of their favorite NCAA moments (if you discount those involving their specific team) involve either great players (Curry, Kemba's run for UCONN, D Wade) or great teams filled with elite players facing off against each other.

I don't know whether you are right or wrong on how the results of your hypothetical poll would turn out. That being said, personally my favorite NCAA moments involve team rather than individual performances.

 

[Seneca_Valley]

Exactly. Who didn't turn on a Duke game last year to watch Zion? I would love to see the ratings of Duke games this past year vs the year prior.

And yes, "diehard" basketball fans will watch an NCAA Final 4 game between Villanova and Butler, but ALL sports fans tune in to watch Magic vs Bird. Jordan/Worthy vs Ewing. That's what built college BB into the spectacle it became. It is also now waning a bit because there aren't these matchups anymore.

Actually, I think you have it backwards. Duke gets good numbers whoever is wearing their shirt. Zion was an outlier; a one and done who transcended the regional nature of college athletics and not one I would use to prove a point. I consider myself hardcore and am pressed to think of another one and done who moved the needle (national recognition) like he did. The great matchups you describe occurred because the players stayed in college and the nation got a chance to watch them grow. Today, by the time the casual fan latches on to these players they generally have moved on.

I would be happy to take a step back with respect to mad talent in order to bring back some semblance of sanity to college hoops.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I don't know whether you are right or wrong on how the results of your hypothetical poll would turn out. That being said, personally my favorite NCAA moments involve team rather than individual performances.

Some examples of favorite games, seasons and styles enjoyed for their team play--

UCLA's National Titles with their small in stature but talented rosters (1954,1965).
Pete Carril's Princeton teams.
Pitt's team play under Buzz Ridl.
Pitt's team play under Dixon.

Most Memorable Games

Loyola of Chicago's come from behind win over Cincinnati for the National Championship (1963).
Pitt's high scoring game win over Syracuse (127-108) at the field house (1970).
Pitt over West Virginia in 3 OTs 98-95 (2010) at the Pete.

 

[levance2]

I don't know whether you are right or wrong on how the results of your hypothetical poll would turn out. That being said, personally my favorite NCAA moments involve team rather than individual performances.

Personally, I don't watch a single game these days unless Pitt is playing. I attend 15+ Pitt games per season and I would seriously struggle to name a single player on another ACC roster. I'm serious.

I'd much rather watch and follow the same guys work their way through a program than watch a guy biding his time until the draft.

 

[thebadby2]

Eventually, you will have the 18 year olds allowed to play. But this new G League route seems like a more viable path to those kids who would be "one and dones", but really don't want to go through the hypocrisy of being a pretend college student for a semester. I don't blame these kids for going this route and it is more appealing than going to Europe as a 17/18 year old.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamza...-g-league-path-was-a-no-brainer/#5349a2a36b63

In a word, yes.

Really bad for college hoops. One and done was bad enough, this is worse.