It would be for me, I don't watch it to see tremendous over the top athleticism, I watch it to root for the "PITT" on the front of the jersey mostly and the "quality of play" never factors into it.
I've Always Felt Like College Basketball is Slimy, FBI Proved it
- Thread starter mehinpgh
- Start date
I'd watch every minute of every PITT game if the play was D3 quality, and it wouldn't matter.
Not necessarily, IMO if Pitt was playing D3 quality players and went 28-6 against like teams, and reached the Final 4, I think the place would be full every night.
You'd be wrong , how many of those schools have gyms as big as the Pete and sell it out .....none .
LOL, people don't watch the tourney for quality of play, it could be all D3 quality players and everyone would still be obsessing over their brackets and rooting for their school, most elite players never play in the tourney much anymore anyways.
Your an unusual fan , chronic incompetence is tough to endure . I want to be entertained .
Pitt wouldn't be selling it out because of "quality of play" they'd be selling it out because of "success of Pitt". Very few people would say, "Yeah Pitt is 20-2, but screw it, I'm not going, those players don't jump high enough". Just the opposite, they'd be happier and more fired up than they are now, BY FAR!
Winning, close games, things like that entertain, you should be a gymnastics fan, that's where the top physical/athleticism jaw dropping performers really go.
That's my point, they have the one and dones, and those guys play one year and they're gone, Actually it would be great if they weren't there at all so there would be more parity and those particular teams wouldn't hog the spotlight there year after year.
I hate to say this , but your delusional if you think Pitt would sell out the Pete competing gains the likes of CMU .
Eliminate the one and dones the elite programs would still get the best talent available leaving schools like Pitt with 2* and an occasional 3* . Then those programs would have better players staying and learning to play better as a team and truly dominate college ball .
I didn't say that, I said if the top 200 where gone and Pitt and the other ACC teams ALL had lesser talent, a good team would still fill the house without elite talent.
Pitt still wouldn't get enough talent to compete because some of the elite kids would value an education and the elite bb schools would still get them . Everything is relative . Pitts highest rated recruit MCarr would have Duke and UNC drolling over him he's never coming to Pitt .
Still, whatever... I don't think losing 200 players across all 400 D1 teams would hurt the sport. just IMO.
Basketball minor leagues are just around the corner!
The one and done, not interested in an education players will play in the minors.
Those players interested in an education, and the players interested in an education and the chance to be in the NBA will go to the college programs!
Some of the elite college coaches will replace the "deadwood" in the NBA others will remain.
Its just a matter of time now!
The one and done, not interested in an education players will play in the minors.
Those players interested in an education, and the players interested in an education and the chance to be in the NBA will go to the college programs!
Some of the elite college coaches will replace the "deadwood" in the NBA others will remain.
Its just a matter of time now!
I think the tourney would still be highly competitive and widely followed. It's just a lot of the games would be like Pitt-Wisconsin of two years ago ... poorly played! BUT, that was definitely a competitive game! AND it was in the tourney! So even though it was the opposite of a work of art, millions tuned in.
As you correctly said, anymore, the bulk of the interest in the tourney is (1) alumni/regional fans of their own schools that made it and (2) the rest, those silly brackets.
That Pitt Wisconsin game was unwatchable and I guarantee you cbs had the good sense to only to continue to show it in the local markets .
That isn't the way that NCAA games are broadcast anymore. That game was on national tv from the opening tip to the final whistle, just like every other tournament game is now.
I have vague memories of the days before ESPN got involved when they wouldn’t switch to the other games being decided in the final seconds. We’d be stuck watching some big name team in a blowout while there were other games in OT.
No , during the boardcast of that game they went away from the game except for Pgh and Wisconsin areas to a more compelling game . I was not in Pgh area and they switched games .
I think they went to girls JD game !
I pretty much agree with 79 here. People go to high school football games, despite the fact that the level of play is dreadful. They go to root for their local team, or alma mater. No one is saying Pitt would be playing CMU, or that the level of play would decline to what you see in a D3 game. What would happen is that with many of the top 100 or so players gone, Carolina might look like Pitt's 2009 team talent wise, while Pitt might have been the equivalent of a good Dayton team. People would still watch, and it would still be a high caliber of basketball. As long as the team was competitive, folks would watch.
Not true as another poster noted. And as much as it is derided as a disgrace on Pitt boards, Wisconsin fans (and those who picked them on their brackets) were not disappointed in it. And that's how it would be if most other games were just like it (due to thinned out talent). In fact, the marketing buzz would be "tight, hard nosed, competitive, what college athletics should really be, blah blah blah".
Keep in mind that even a full minor league, with a team for every NBA franchise, would likely only have room for 300-360 players, depending on how high they set the roster limit. Probably a third of these players would be older guys with NBA experience, as teams would want to have some dependable vets on hand to call up in the event of injuries. You'd also have spots taken up by players who were coming out of college, as well as those coming over from Europe, plus previous picks who were still trying to work their way up to the NBA. With all of that in mind, you might have spots available for 30-50 high schoolers every year. The rest would still have to go to college if they wanted to play ball. Some would want to go to college anyway. Put in the same 3 year rule that baseball uses, and any decline in quality would be minimal, as the reduction in turnover would raise the level of play enough to largely offset the loss of the maybe 100-150 players over 3 years who would turn pro out of high school, many of whom would only be in college ball for a year or two anyway. I mean, does one year of Lonzo Ball really make more of an impact than 3 years of DeJuan Blair would?
Not now, but they did back then and pretty much revolutionized the way these games were shown.
That wasn’t a hard nose blah ...it was college bb at its worst . Those who picked the Badgers were happy they won , but nobody should ever be forced to watch such a horrible game . If Pitt had won I’d be glad they won , but still disgusted that they played so poorly .
That is simply not true. In 2011 the NCAA started a new television contract with CBS and Turner. That contract provided that every game of the tournament would be shown on one of CBS, TBS, TNT or TruTV in it's entirety. The upshot of that is that since 2011 there has been NO NCAA tournament game that was switched off of the channel it was on in favor of another game. Games that start on CBS are shown in their entirely on CBS. Games that start on TBS are shown on TBS in their entirety. Games that start on TNT are shown on TNT in their entirety. Games that start on TruTV are shown on TruTV in their entirety.
Nobody cares if the tournament games are works of art. Just like nobody cares if the Super Bowl is a dog of a game. They are watching "the event".
If it's close and comes down to a final possession (even if that possession, like most others in the game, is botched because the best talent was allowed to go directly to the pros like they should), it'll be lauded as a "thriller". And half the viewers (and those who had picked the winner on their brackets) will be ecstatic and remember it fondly, work of art or not.
Whereas, whether it's the Wisconsin loss or the Villanova loss of a few years before (which WAS a great game, and had our team's greatest players in a generation), either way, the losing team fans (us) wanted to vomit. It didn't exactly make anyone feel better that one of those games was at a higher level of play.
The Steelers first Super Bowl winning season was fairly mediocre, the team overall actually wasn't that fantastic especially the offense (they went through three starting QBs over the course of the season, and none did a particularly great job). And that Super Bowl is generally regarded as one of the worst. But no Steeler fan thinks poorly of it. It's a milestone game in their minds. Meanwhile, the SB where they lost to the Cowboys was kind of an exciting game, with Dallas roaring out to an early lead and the Steelers clawing back into it, marred unfortunately at the end by two dumb INTs, but generally a far more exciting game than Super Bowl IX. Does any Steeler fan feel better about that? No. Winning or losing is what is ultimately remembered.
Last edited:
If your a die heart fan of a team a W is what it’s all about , but casual fans , which most people are , want to watch well played exciting games . That game was about two inept teams going up and down the court turning the ball over and shooting bricks and nobody wants to watch this . Look at the attendence at the Pete/ Heinz and you’ll get an idea of how many die heart Panther fans there really are .
The Steelers first Super Bowl game was all about a stifling defense it was a different game in those days were teams were actually allowed to play defense . I found it exciting as I did in their loss to the
Cowboys . Of course I enjoyed the W more . The networks want eyeballs and they want them for the entire game and both SBs achieved that while no one but the die hearts could stomach the Pitt /Wis mess .
It seems as though the IVY'S backed away from big time football and the so called stench, so they could
relegate the Ivy league school brand to the stench and corruption of politics and political corruption. With few exceptions. A lot of academia was sold to the devil.
Ivy Leaguers have played a major role in steering the ship of state since the country was founded. The leadership of every country on earth, from the moment mankind began to organize on the tribal level, has been full of filth, and corruption. If you're going to get dirty, you might as well get dirty helping run the world, and enriching yourself, as opposed to playing a largely meaningless game.
The Ivy’s choose power and money over Fb and Bb wins . Maybe that’s why it’s a lot harder to get into their schools !
Similar threads
