Sports fans know what time of year it is whenever they turn on the TV. Basketball means the winter has finally come. The problem that I have with this form of menology is that most people associate basketball with March, more specifically March Madness.
Google “college basketball” and you will find thousands of message boards claiming that college basketball is the only “real” basketball and vilifying NBA players as spoiled brats. The NBA finals has been getting lower and lower ratings since Michael Jordan retired, while the NCAA championship game has been getting higher and higher ratings. Over the past seven years the average Nielsen Rating for the NBA finals has been a 9.0, while the NCAA finals has been over twice as high with a 23.4.
Yet, despite the apparent superior popularity of college basketball, the NBA should be acknowledged and respected as the superior display of basketball as well as entertainment.
The NBA took a serious dive in popularity after Michael Jordan retired from meaningful basketball in 1998. In the eighties and nineties, it was full of likeable role model stars. Jordan, Magic, Bird, Olajuwan, David Robinson, and Karl Malone were all more or less clean cut and even their indiscretions were turned into positives. The league then went through a dark period. After the millennium ended, the NBA was plagued by a lack of clean-cut stars. The Ron Artests, Stephon Marburys, and Jail Blazers sullied the image of the NBA for a lot of fans.
But that was the old NBA. Players like Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and the Redeem Team form the core of the new NBA. Their dominance on the court trumps any off-court incidents, of which there have been few (even Kobe’s big one hasn’t had a lasting effect on his popularity). These young stars are part of the reason for the increasing popularity of pro ball once again. And once again, the debate rages. Which is better — college or the NBA?
For a long time, the vogue thing to do, whether you were a casual fan or someone who knows exactly how many quadruple doubles there have been, was to disavow the NBA, saying the only “real” basketball was in college. The reasons for this varied but were usually that the professionals were spoiled by how much money they made, they played soft if any defense, and didn’t play hard until the playoffs. These claims can be true, if one looks at the losers.
Spoiled? Yes. Any 21-year-old who is suddenly given a seven-figure paycheck is going to be spoiled. But the league sometimes gets unfairly characterized by brats like Latrell Sprewell, whose “I have kids to feed” line will go down in infamy. But look at the league rosters. His name is nowhere to be found. Sprewell aside, it is also a little disingenuous to sing a player’s praises when he is in college, and then condemn the same player a year later when he is in the pros. Did his character really change that much in such a short time? These guys were already treated like rock stars in college. The “Spoiled” argument just doesn’t fly.
Defense is another cornerstone of any argument that the NBA is worse than college. I would argue the exact opposite. The difference in the rules between college and professional basketball prevents a lazy zone defense in the pros. Shaquille O’Neal can’t park himself in the paint and swat every ball that comes his way. At the college level, because there is no “defensive three seconds rule,” centers have a lot more freedom to be lazy.
If you look at the league champions out of the last seven years, six of them are teams lauded for their defense, not their offense. The San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons have been the best defensive teams of the last decade. Someone complaining about the lack of defense in NBA games need only watch the winners to see defense at its best.
It’s not that I dislike college basketball. I love all basketball, but I just like to see basketball being played at its highest level, and the most skilled players are in the NBA — it’s as simple as that. Any player who is skilled enough to play in the NBA is there because talent goes where the money is. It used to be that players wouldn’t even go to college. Your Kobes, Lebrons, Dwight Howards, and Kevin Garnetts all left high school and skipped college to start making the big money. The NBA then instituted the rule that players must be 19 years old as of the end of the calendar year of the draft. These rules do help keep the best crop of players in college basketball, but only for one year. After that the players move on to pro ball. This leads me to my biggest beef with college basketball: There’s no story line.
For any sports fan, the story and recent history of a team is one of the most interesting parts of fandom. Following a team from year to year is part of the fun, but in college basketball, the best players are there and then they’re gone, sometimes after only a year. The process of seeing a team come together from nothing and grow to be a championship contender is why the NBA is fun, and it is why people have favorite teams. Because almost every significant player in the NCAA gets turned over after every season, the game is just not fun to follow.
Watching the development of Andrew Bynum gets Lakers fans drooling at the beginning of the season. The Cavaliers face possibly the most exciting drama over the next season with their “Will Lebron leave when his contract expires?” saga. And we Knicks fans pine for a day when our team may become relevant again in this new golden age.
The NBA is the greatest stage for professional basketball in the world, so naturally it s where the best players are and the best games are played. College ball may be exciting because of the large brackets and the proclivity for gambling, but the NBA is real basketball, the best basketball.
Matthew Strickland is a senior at Drexel University. He studies English and Philosophy, and is anticipated to graduate in March of 2010.
Subscribe to RSS
Great article Matt, I couldn’t agree more
Educational article. I didn’t know that the NBA has a three second rule for defense! Explains the apparent lack of D. I am against the NBA rule requiring 19 min age as one of the results is exactly what you pointed out, i.e. no “story line” for the college teams! Probably better to let the savants go directly to the NBA-let the market rule.
Point well taken. But I do have to say there is something about college ball that I find more compelling. I also think the turnover you speak of is part of the fun. Rock & Roll.
I have to disagree with this entire article, Mr Strickland as I always do on this topic… I am not a die hard basketball fan myself, but through various sources have been pulled into watching both the college and professional levels of basketball, on a regular basis. I agree with you that the best players are in the NBA, that goes to say for any professional sport, but to say the best games… the NBA players don’t have as much heart. They are still going to get their six figure paycheck plus their endorsements at the end of the night. Whether, they get 25 points and 9 assists or none at all there will still be nice cars, new clothes, and lots of ladies waiting for them. There is something to say about the college players to, with their full rides to big name universities, with ladies and extra petty cash coming from the schools pocket, but they still need to strive for something higher, a goal of most college ball players… to make it to the NBA. Selfish yes, it is all about them, but in the NCAA you will not be seen if your team sucks it up. You may not make it to the precious NBA if your team can’t make “March Madness”. That is where the love of your team comes in. There is a pride and a love for the school you go to for those four years that turns you into the ball player that the NBA will or will not want. Even though for a short time, that school is your family, your home, your life. You want your team to succeed as much as they can for your own success.
Being from Drexel and following their program, the only hopeful we have had in recent history was Frank “the Tank” Elegar in the 2006-2007 season when we made top seed at the NIT, rumors were flying about scouts checking him out and making it big (even if he would be the last player on the bench). But what happened? Drexel sucked up big time the following season and Elegar’s draft sheet on NBA.com still sits awaiting an answer, 2 years later.
The teams in college need to try harder, work harder, and play harder, because everyone on your team is not NBA worthy, but you have to make it look like they are.
Valid points all, Strickland.
College does have one huge advantage that the NBA doesn’t have: stupid college kids with limited practice time. Given the very finite practice time and the fact that 18-22 year old kids are notoriously prone to both wild energy swings and boneheaded blunders. The absurd (George Mason) is more likely in NCAA, because, put simply, who can predict the performance of bunch of college kids with an over-inflated sense of accomplishment?
Personally, I feel the NBA has lost popularity in general for other reasons. Mainly the reffing is very sketchy with everything Donaghy has come out and said. But even before Donaghy, the game and how it is officiated was changed when Jordan entered and proceeded to dominate the rest of the league. He transformed it into a superstar league where the Kobes, Lebrons, and Chris Pauls of the world are necessary to win and can draw a foul at will when they are barely grazed ( possible exceptions are during the last 1-2 mins of a close game.) These stars have been given more and more leeway and somehow even morphed some rules such as palming and hop steps. Of course, I wasn’t alive for the pre-MJ era of basketball, so much of my opinion is based only on what I have read and others’ opinions too.
It is true that defense wins championships. That is true in football, and soccer, and even in baseball, where defense is underrated and poorly measured (look at the WBCs where a star loaded Dominican team lost to a fundamentally sound, significantly less talented Dutch team, and Team USA did almost nothing in both tournaments). But in the NBA coaches are hired who blatantly disregard defense (D’antoni, Eddie Jordan, Don Nelson). They definitely produce an entertaining product, which is basically what you’re asking for anyway, and have even produced some pretty successful teams over the last decade. But certainly no champions, and even the successful versions of these teams are usually weeded out during the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs. In college, you have to play fundamental basketball.
I disagree with your claim that there is no story line in college ball. To the casual fan, it may be hard to see. The player overturn at each school is tremendous. As a diehard fan of just one team, it can be necessary to track each recruiting visit, each signed letter of intent to see who is going to be added to the team. You also have to see which undergrads may declare for the draft (and yes some stars stay for more than 1 year. Actually they used to always go for 3-4 years to hone their body and mind. That was also in the pre-Jordan era). It is also daunting to get a handle on any of the other teams’ rosters that yours might play against in a given season. But if you decide to just ignore all of this, and fast forward to when the most talented players are in the pros, you’ll end up missing the “magic” of college bball.
-The excitement of knocking off a #1 ranked team or top seed
-The joy of rushing the court as a student body when beating a highly ranked foe (not likely at Drexel, I know, but happened at Temple this year)
-Conference tournaments giving every team one last chance to make the big dance, and maybe be the next cinderella story
-The creativity. How often do you see a 4 guard lineup in the NBA. You talk about the lack of zone in the NBA being a plus. In college you can take a different defensive gameplan against every team. Full court press for 40 minutes. 2-3 zone one minute, man-to-man the next. Maybe a box and one.
Not to mention all the talent that you’d miss out on that never makes it to the bigs. For every Charles Barkley, there are a hundred 6′4″ power forwards who lead their team to a Final Four run, but could never be in the NBA because they just stopped growing. Some of the best college players are 5′10″ guards that just can’t defend an NBA PG one-on-one. Look through the past Naismith players of the year. There are a handful of perennial NBA all-stars on that list of course, but it mostly looks like this: JJ Redick, Hansbrough, TJ Ford, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson… a bunch of NBA busts and bench players. Why is that? Shouldn’t the guys with the most talent win that award every year? In reality, the best collegiate player in the country is usually the one who works the hardest, who has the most heart, who wants to win. That’s not always easy to find in the NBA.
As a casual fan, it is indeed easier to follow the NBA. You already know all the stars. You know about the Shaq-Kobe rivalry. You know Lamar Odom just married one of the Kardashian sisters. That stuff is shoved down everyone’s throats. The NBA transformation is a lot like the Sportscenter transformation, if you’ve taken the time to notice it. ESPN and its Sportscenter used to provide quality, journalistic pieces of sports news. Now they prioritize the E (stands for entertainment) more so than the S and turned Sportscenter into more of a reality show. NBA basketball is purely that: entertainment. It’s a show, not unlike the Shreks on Ice that occur in the same arenas. I agree, it is fun to watch. But I mostly enjoy watching the individual talent. I turn to college ball to watch full 5 on 5, team competition.
I did enjoy the article though Matty
college games do seem more intense sometimes but the nba skill level is unmatched..watching what those guys do on a daily basis from dunks to crazy athletic plays..it sometimes seem humanly impossible, the NBA hands down is the top showcase of basketball talent.
Pretty good article. I agree with almost everything said… but i thought there was an NBA rule that required you to play 2 years of college ball. Maybe they stopped that, i’ll have to look into it
I love both the NBA and college equally but for different reasons. However, one thing you didn’t mention is also my biggest problem with college basketball: the “held ball/jump ball” rule. I HATE THE POSSESSION ARROW. DON’T CALL IT A JUMP BALL IF THERE IS NO JUMPING INVOLVED (as there should be).
Stricks, I agree with your overall point, but one big area where college basketball becomes a better brand of basketball is in the postseason. Of course, March Madness is one of the most exciting events in sports on a yearly basis (the only thing that really beats it is the World Cup…every 4 years). So, the NBA is already at a disadvantage. But they do themselves no favors by letting half the league into the playoffs (some with losing records) and begin in the middle of April and run until the end of June. These two factors irrevocably dilute any real excitement the NBA playoffs can muster.
By letting that many teams into the playoffs, you’re basically delaying the inevitable. There is a clear divide in talent between the top 3 and bottom 3 seeds in each conference, and for every Warriors-Mavs or Celtics-Bulls classic, there are that many more sweeps. There are some interesting battles in the semi-finals, but the playoffs do not really start until the conference finals, a month into the playoffs. This is where the clear cut 4 best teams (sometimes a 3 or 4 seed makes it this far) really bring NBA basketball to its highest level. And then the finals, well, those are always fun to watch (except when the Spurs play the Pistons…ugh).
Cutting the first round and the bottom half in each league would go a long way toward making the NBA playoffs a lot more palatable to an audience that finds March Madness a more visceral and worthwhile experience. That way, we can leave behind sweeps . Nobody likes sweeps!
Except everyone loves revenue, so all I just said is nothing but a pipe dream.
Oh, and the Knicks should bring back Jeff Van Gundy. I miss our little runt.
I agree with everything this guys says
And1 is the best of all time. Sucks that they broke up.