Kolek planning to go pro
People claiming NCAA > NBA need to preface their statement by saying they enjoy bad basketball.
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold. He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.
I don't think this is accurate. Watching James Harden take an iso step back three 20+ times a game is not what I would call "good basketball". The Rockets may win if he does that, because the talent level is so high, but there is a strong argument to be made that watching a good college team move the ball, work the shot clock, and take a good shot is significantly "better" basketball. I'm not ripping on either NCAA or NBA, but just because the talent level is higher (most times significantly so) does not mean that you play "better basketball" in the NBA.
Comparing a good college play with a poor NBA play isn’t really fair. Just like it’s not fair to compare the Golden State Warriors with UW-Madison. When the NBA is playing at pace and moving the ball, it is the best basketball on the planet. Also I think the run of the mill NBA game is way more entertaining than a run of the mill college game. But both can be good and fun to watch in different sorts of ways. I could go the rest of my life without watching a high school game and be just fine.
Bad may be a bit harsh, but it's certainly inferior.Love the notion that players being too good at shooting (hence the need to move back the 3-point line), the continuation rule and the lack of offensive fouls = bad basketball.
You said what I was trying to say, only better. In terms of overall talent, and entertainment value, the NBA will win out 95% of the time, but there is so much NBA where a team will run no offense for 20 seconds, and then still hit a three, just because they are THAT good at shooting. Entertaining, yes, but IMO it is not "good" basketball. Now this happens in college too, just less frequently and with a much lower success rate.
I guess I don't understand how that isn't "good" basketball. You just said they are more successful at the ultimate objective of the game. Doesn't that make it "good?"
I would define "good" basketball as getting the highest percentage shot on every trip down the floor. Due to pure shooting ability, most NBA teams have a majority of possessions that don't end this way, and yet you can still win, thus being more "successful at the ultimate objective". Harden or Westbrook taking a contested 3, 5 seconds into the shot clock may go in, but watching a Pop team move the ball, with every player touching it on a possession that ends in a open mid-range jumper is a higher quality possession to me (even if the shot is missed). Houston has beaten San Antonio 2 out of 3 games this year, and are higher in the standings, but the Spurs play "better" basketball. All IMO of course.
So making a 3 point shot isn't as "good" as moving the ball a lot and missing a mid-range 2 point shot?
So you love the WNBA and women's CBB then? Cause strip away the athleticism and strength that allows some of the ridiculous shooting and driving to the basket and you get a more pure form of basketball played in women's ball.
I don't dislike the WNBA or NCAAW like some do. I think the skill drop off is significant compared to the all male counterparts, which creates a less desirable game more-so than just pure athleticism as it seems that you're trying to imply.
Look, I'm not trying to hate on the NBA, I watch and enjoy plenty of it. I was just disputing the assertion that the NBA is always better than college ball. Most times the NBA is more entertaining and better, sometimes college is. I hardly think that is some over the top opinion.
What in the hell are the Knicks doing?