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.

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.

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?

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.