Is college basketball really down?

[SoMuchDramaInTheLNC]

:ez-laugh:

3 of the 4 teams in the final four last year had ZERO one-and-done players.

Kansas had none.

Ohio State had none.

Louisville had none.

North Carolina had none.

Syracuse had none.

Should I go on?

These were the best teams in college basketball last season outside of Kentucky, and NONE of them had a SINGLE one-and-done player.

So no, the one and done rule isn't having the impact everyone here thinks it is.

He didn't say one-and-done players, he said one-and-done talent. All of those teams had players with the talent to be one-and-done.

 

[Sooner-Bred]

He didn't say one-and-done players, he said one-and-done talent. All of those teams had players with the talent to be one-and-done.

Okay, even so, lets look at that.

So did Oklahoma State with Lebryan Nash (even though he chose to stay).

So did Texas with Myck Kabongo (even though he chose to stay).

So did UCONN with Andre Drummond.

So did Indiana with Cody Zeller (even though he chose to stay).

Florida had one and done talent with Brad Beal.

Duke had one and done talent with Austin Rivers.

Memphis had one and done talent with Adonis Thomas.

NC State had one and done talent in CJ Leslie.

Baylor had one and done talent with Quincy Miller.

Obviously Kentucky had one and done talent.

And as you said above, those teams technically had players who COULD have been one and done (UNC, Ohio State, Kansas, Syracuse, etc.)

I hardly see how all the one and done talent is focused on 5-6 teams.

I just listed at least 15 teams that has "one and done talent".

And either way, there's still a great blend.

Teams like Michigan State, Georgetown, Marquette, Michigan, and Louisville are just some quick examples of teams that almost NEVER get ANY one and done talent. They just build their players are compete with very experienced upper-classmen.

They've all had great success in recent years.

Again, one and done players, or one and done talent, are not bringing down college basketball.

 

[SoMuchDramaInTheLNC]

Right, I was agreeing with you that the teams you listed also had the one-and-dones, and that it wasn't just limited to those schools. But the problem isn't the talent level; it's the lack of connection to the school. Let's use Kentucky as an example, because it's the most glaring one. I've said this before, but in 10 years, we won't remember Anthony Davis and MKG at UK any more than whoever else UK manages to get in the next few years. Calipari could just as easily be at Indiana, or UNC, or Texas; what's the difference? His players come in, produce very briefly, and leave. It's like if LeBron and KD decided to team up and sign one-year deals with various teams for the rest of their careers. UK is basically a glorified AAU team year in and year out under this current system, as are the other schools who consistently recruit the one-and-done-type players. Gone are the days of building teams; now it's more about building the fanciest collection of individuals, just like AAU. That's why I think interest in college basketball is down.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Has anyone researched the attendance numbers???

I just did a quick-and-dirty query. Here's the average attendance for D-1 teams over the past 10 years. The average number of teams fluctuates from year-to-year, but is roughly around 325-330.

2012: 4,994
2011: 5,025
2010: 5,038
2009: 5,185
2008: 5,325
2007: 5,327
2006: 5,198
2005: 5,095
2004: 5,134
2003: 5,125

Note that 2012 is year-to-date, and should increase as we get into conference play. If you look at the data from 2003-2011, there was an overall decline of 2%. However, note that attendance did slightly increase in 2007 and 2008.

So, overall I'd say it's been rather stable for the past 10 years.

If you look back at around 1993-96 time frame, which is the last years that the NCAA has the consolidated data, the attendance was around 5,300.

So with that in mind, attendance has declined about 5% to the past couple of years, where the per-session attendance seemed to have settled to around 5,000 or so.

 

[ByronHoustonsSweatyPalms]

Imagine the quality of the current college teams if all the one and dones had stayed in school for 2-3 years. We would have a true upper echelon of college basketball.

 

[CoachTalk]

Imagine the quality of the current college teams if all the one and dones had stayed in school for 2-3 years. We would have a true upper echelon of college basketball.

For sure. You think about Kentucky has done, those 10-12 kids that have left early would have gone to other d1 schools. Because those "fab five" wouldn't have went to Kentucky with those others already there!

 

[jmizzy4ou]

I just did a quick-and-dirty query. Here's the average attendance for D-1 teams over the past 10 years. The average number of teams fluctuates from year-to-year, but is roughly around 325-330.

2012: 4,994
2011: 5,025
2010: 5,038
2009: 5,185
2008: 5,325
2007: 5,327
2006: 5,198
2005: 5,095
2004: 5,134
2003: 5,125

Note that 2012 is year-to-date, and should increase as we get into conference play. If you look at the data from 2003-2011, there was an overall decline of 2%. However, note that attendance did slightly increase in 2007 and 2008.

So, overall I'd say it's been rather stable for the past 10 years.

If you look back at around 1993-96 time frame, which is the last years that the NCAA has the consolidated data, the attendance was around 5,300.

So with that in mind, attendance has declined about 5% to the past couple of years, where the per-session attendance seemed to have settled to around 5,000 or so.

Good stuff!!! Thanks Jeff.

 

[SilliSooner]

I'm sorry, but if Mason Plumlee right now is considered as a lock for Player of the Year, college basketball is down.

Attendance may be similar to recent years but the collection of players on a team, with their skills compared to past and recent teams has dropped.

I can't pinpoint the reason but the overall quality of players seems to be down as far as skill levels as compared to recent years.

Prove me wrong.

 

[campbest]

I'm sorry, but if Mason Plumlee right now is considered as a lock for Player of the Year, college basketball is down.

Attendance may be similar to recent years but the collection of players on a team, with their skills compared to past and recent teams has dropped.

I can't pinpoint the reason but the overall quality of players seems to be down as far as skill levels as compared to recent years.

Prove me wrong.

Mason Plumlee is the "lock" for POY? News to me.

 

[SilliSooner]

Mason Plumlee is the "lock" for POY? News to me.

As predicted by Sports Illustrated.
None of the other players they name are recognizable either and only one or two big men.

It's a lousy year for the Thunder to have some extra draft picks.

I, above, said Sports Illustrated. I meant CBS Sports.

LINK: Players of Year

 

[Sawyer]

After watching Mizzou lose to UCLA last night, I'm convinced college basketball needs a few changes to get back to what it once was.

1. A faster shot clock. The game was played at a fast pace, and it was great to watch. Games played in grind-it-out fashion in the 50s and 60s aren't fun to watch. Games should be in the 80s and 90s. I know the great Big 8 teams of the 80s would frequently have high-scoring slugfests.

2. Do something about fouls. Bill Walton mentioned several times a need to modernize the rules of college basketball. He's absolutely right. That UCLA could have four fouls to give with 10 seconds left to play is a joke. That they'd be allowed to give all four to eat up clock is worse. That the fourth can involve slamming a Mizzou player to the ground is awful. That ruined a beautiful basketball game for me (and would have even if MU won).

3. Keep players in school more than one year. Forget about a baseball rule. Just set an across-the-board two-year age limit. If a guy wants to go pro that bad, let him play in Europe. Seeing UCLA's insanely talented players was so much fun. They're like the offensive version of last year's Kentucky (but not quite as good). They might only lose Muhammad to early entry, but it's still an unfortunate loss for college basketball. Seeing those guys come together for two years would be special.

 

[CoachTalk]

After watching Mizzou lose to UCLA last night, I'm convinced college basketball needs a few changes to get back to what it once was.

1. A faster shot clock. The game was played at a fast pace, and it was great to watch. Games played in grind-it-out fashion in the 50s and 60s aren't fun to watch. Games should be in the 80s and 90s. I know the great Big 8 teams of the 80s would frequently have high-scoring slugfests.

2. Do something about fouls. Bill Walton mentioned several times a need to modernize the rules of college basketball. He's absolutely right. That UCLA could have four fouls to give with 10 seconds left to play is a joke. That they'd be allowed to give all four to eat up clock is worse. That the fourth can involve slamming a Mizzou player to the ground is awful. That ruined a beautiful basketball game for me (and would have even if MU won).

3. Keep players in school more than one year. Forget about a baseball rule. Just set an across-the-board two-year age limit. If a guy wants to go pro that bad, let him play in Europe. Seeing UCLA's insanely talented players was so much fun. They're like the offensive version of last year's Kentucky (but not quite as good). They might only lose Muhammad to early entry, but it's still an unfortunate loss for college basketball. Seeing those guys come together for two years would be special.

1. I understand the fans perspective of a great offenses game but why punish coaches who strive for defense and efficiency over sloppy play. look 90 points 120 points has done for the NBA, the NBA's awful to watch.

2. Why punish UCLA about the foulss, that fourth foul was not a dirty play I know you're Missouri fan but the shooter was trying to draw the three point shot Foul and going full speed they knew you was going try to Foul so he tried to get cute and it didnt work out well for him.

3. I go back and forth on the old one and done rule or the two and done rule. Why punish a kid who can go out out of high school and make $2 million. I understand the bad advice and handlers and mentors, and those kinds of people who sometimes don't have the best interest in kids, if the guy wanted to start Facebook at the age of 18 we can't tell him well you have to go to college for two years before you can do something smart and take care your family for the rest of their lives.

 

[Sawyer]

1. You can still run an efficient team with a 24-second shot clock. The NBA's been using a 24-second clock for 50+ years. It's proven to work fine.

2. UCLA benefitted from the officiating all night. No team plays 19:50 and only commits two fouls. And then to foul four times in ten seconds to kill time... that isn't basketball. The rules should be modified to prevent that (which, if I understood Walton, is the case in the NBA). I don't mind teams fouling to stop the clock when they're down. Doing it when you're ahead or tied is a joke.

3. No one's punishing anyone with an age limit. If the next Lebron wants to make money right away, he can play in Europe. Brandon Jennings made $1.2 million in his single season over there then got drafted in the lotto. That's about half his rookie salary, but I don't feel bad for 18-year-olds who"only" make a million bucks. And that doesn't factor in the kind of money a player could get from Nike or Adidas. No one's forcing players to go to college or preventing them from making a living. One company is setting a limit on who it will hire.

 

[CoachTalk]

1. You can still run an efficient team with a 24-second shot clock. The NBA's been using a 24-second clock for 50+ years. It's proven to work fine.

2. UCLA benefitted from the officiating all night. No team plays 19:50 and only commits two fouls. And then to foul four times in ten seconds to kill time... that isn't basketball. The rules should be modified to prevent that (which, if I understood Walton, is the case in the NBA). I don't mind teams fouling to stop the clock when they're down. Doing it when you're ahead or tied is a joke.

3. No one's punishing anyone with an age limit. If the next Lebron wants to make money right away, he can play in Europe. Brandon Jennings made $1.2 million in his single season over there then got drafted in the lotto. That's about half his rookie salary, but I don't feel bad for 18-year-olds who"only" make a million bucks. And that doesn't factor in the kind of money a player could get from Nike or Adidas. No one's forcing players to go to college or preventing them from making a living. One company is setting a limit on who it will hire.

1. NBA basketball is mostly awful to watch. Horrible effort and defense, terrible shot selection on half the possessions. "proven to work fine" is a vast over statement!

2. Why isnt it basketball, you dont foul (or get fouls called on you), you get rewarded in the last seconds of the game. Play fast, rough, and out of control at times and you foul, the other team gets rewarded. It happened to my team the other night and we lost 60-61, but I never questioned it being no part of the game. Yeah it frustrated the crap out of me, because I had 2 time outs and they had 3 fouls to give and used them wisely.

3. How many 18 yr old kids could handle that? I understand your point and I agree with you at times, I just go back and forth on this issue, because people do take advantage of kids with talent to benefit themselves.

 

[Sawyer]

1. The NBA's issues aren't about the shot clock.

2. UCLA wasn't rewarded for playing well. They were rewarded for weak officiating for the prior 19:50. There is not a person alive that enjoys watching teams foul intentionally to prevent another team from getting an opportunity to run a play, and it's ridiculous what the refs allow to happen when they know one team is trying to foul.

3. If any 18-year-old can't handle a European vacation with his family, then he can't handle being on an NBA roster with an NBA salary anyway.

 

[CoachTalk]

1. The NBA's issues aren't about the shot clock.

2. UCLA wasn't rewarded for playing well. They were rewarded for weak officiating for the prior 19:50. There is not a person alive that enjoys watching teams foul intentionally to prevent another team from getting an opportunity to run a play, and it's ridiculous what the refs allow to happen when they know one team is trying to foul.

3. If any 18-year-old can't handle a European vacation with his family, then he can't handle being on an NBA roster with an NBA salary anyway.

1. Nba has issues.

2. Blaming officials is a lame excuse!

3. Not quite a European vacation on most those teams. Read some articles from Jennings and Childress, and other players over there. No a vaca!

 

[Sawyer]

1. Not the point.

2. This isn't about blaming anyone for a loss. It's about improving college basketball. Officiating is wildly inconsistent from game to game, and some of the rules need to be revamped. I'm not analyzing a loss. I'm talking about making the game more enjoyable for the fans.

3. They got paid in the millions. That's the point. I don't care if they enjoyed every minute of it. 18-year-olds have the option to go make their money if they want it. The idea that an NBA age limit is denying kids the ability to earn a living is dumb. It's not. If they're too good to settle for a couple years touring Europe and earning millions, they can go to school or go to hell.

 

[campbest]

1. Not the point.

2. This isn't about blaming anyone for a loss. It's about improving college basketball. Officiating is wildly inconsistent from game to game, and some of the rules need to be revamped. I'm not analyzing a loss. I'm talking about making the game more enjoyable for the fans.

3. They got paid in the millions. That's the point. I don't care if they enjoyed every minute of it. 18-year-olds have the option to go make their money if they want it. The idea that an NBA age limit is denying kids the ability to earn a living is dumb. It's not. If they're too good to settle for a couple years touring Europe and earning millions, they can go to school or go to hell.

Why did you come here to complain about the officiating in a Mizzou-UCLA game? Also, if you're going to give UCLA an intentional at the end of regulation, better be ready to whack Haith with a technical for running onto the floor.

 

[bocabull]

Tyus Edney. lol

When is Missouri's bowl game anyway?

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

Who knew Bill Walton was still announcing. I figured he quit when he ran out of sons to call "Walton".