Weigh in:
My personal belief is that it isn't so much that college basketball is deteriorating, but rather that the margin for error and talent differential has become so small due to the specialization kids now make thru AAU ball - that there just isn't going to be huge variances/dominant teams in CBB anymore. Believe almost anyone can beat anyone on any given night within the Top 50.
Also, due to the information age we live in - kids now have so much more exposure, that the absolute best kids are found/identified to play high/mid-major ball. In the past, I question if the best available talent always made it to the NCAA level, due to exposure differential, etc.
My guess is that we continue to see more years like we are seeing this year, and that this will become the norm, versus the exception. Thoughts?
I would argue it has more to do with more teams getting more exposure. It used to be only the cream of the crop was televised, and only a couple times per week. Now pretty much every major conference has a major television contract. So the best kids who want the best exposure don't necessarily have to go to UCLA or UNC or Duke. Of course a good amount still do, but if they want to stay local, they can do so and still have a chance to audition for the pros on a weekly/bi-weekly basis. ESPN has more to do with it than anything, and I think this helps MU tremendously.
I think that the biggest reason for parity in NCAA basketball is early entry into the NBA. UCLA could dominate when they recruited the best players like Alcinder and Walton and the dudes stuck around for four years.
Now the best players are in the NCAA for only their freshman years - just long enough to learn the ropes - and then they are gone.
I remember years when the second best team in the NCAA was Kentucky's second string, now Calipari gets the same kind of guys, but he pretty much has to recruit a new team of one and done guys each year.
I would agree. Just look at Oakland and Old Dominion. Who would want them in a first round match up.
Interesting thesis, I would agree to some point, but I think you could look at a lot of factors on why the current state of CBB is down.
In no particular order, just a brainstorm, not saying I agree with them...
~Elite players are only staying 1 or 2 years, not allowing them to develop fully on teams
~Quality of coaching both in college and in high school going down
~Higher academic standards in the NCAA, forcing some to JUCO
~CBB players emulating pros, by going to play with other elite players, thus making conferences very top heavy
~Less kids growing up playing basketball, may be?
~Coaching carousel, where coahces will jump ship after 2-4 years, again not providing a stable foundation to become "elite"
~Title IX, and the stresses it puts on colleges budgets
~The BCS, and the heavy heavy financial implication that brings, possibly forcing some schools to gut the basketball budget to try to develop a stronger football program
I think its simple, players want to play...rather than go to a Big East team, and sit, good players seem to be more and more inclined to go to the CUSA or A10 team and play sooner than later. Those mid-major types or lesser teams from the high major conferences get better, and the high majors aren't as deep or talented a they traditionally have been.
Lots of good thoughts here - agree with the "players want to play" theory quite a bit, which is helping to elevate the mid major teams. Also agree that due to early entry, 1 and dones, it is harder to form a dominant team. They BYU's and Utah States have a chance to compete with 4 year program guys against the 1 and dones from Kentucky, UNC and Dukes.
I think AAU ball, and early entry, have made college basketball significantly worse as an overall product. Both have evened out the playing field, but the quality isn't there like it used to be. ESPN is doing a film on the Fab 5, and I was thinking about when that group was sophomores. That year's final four was Michigan, Kansas, Kentucky and eventual champion North Carolina. Indiana may have been the best team that year but Alan Henderson got hurt late in the year. That was an incredible Final Four from a basketball perspective. Much better than what we have seen lately.
I think the overall quality of basketball is worse than in the past but there is more talent spread out among more teams. In the past you could have teams like UCLA dominate because there were absolutely very few top notch teams out west. They could breeze to the final four without even being pressured.
The quality, top to bottom, in the past was more like what women's college basketball is now - top teams totally dominant over the middle and bottom. Now you have any of the top 11 teams in the Big East able to beat each other on any given night. And like we saw last night, even team number 15.