The Final Four is the most important weekend in college basketball, but it is far more than that. The Final Four is the largest gathering of the year in fans, media, and the game's luminaries, and is also a mass celebration when the game crowns a champion. It is a celebration of the game and we love it. Some are better than others in the Final Four. There are always great stories, great competition, and a worthy champion that will be remembered. Thank goodness that the Final Four is idiot-proof.
The NCAA tournament provided great stories and competition, and a good feeling to all, this year. We had a return to normal with fans in the stands, loud crowds, cheerleaders saving the day when a ball was stuck on the backboard, and a final weekend of blue bloods to fight it out for the title. We have the last time for Coach K to win a title, the first time for Hubert Davis to win a title, and another chance for Bill Self to win multiple titles, and Jay Wright to join elite company by winning three or more titles. This is one of the most royal Final Fours of all time, as every Final Four team has won multiple titles. There isn't much to complain about.
The leader of the opaque bureaucracy that claims to be in charge of college sports has a news conference every year at the Final Four. The media can ask probing questions, yet they get evasive answers that don't provide much in the way of substance. It is a waste of time for everyone.
In the absence of substance from NCAA leadership, let this be one person&s humble judgment on the state of the game. While reasonable minds can disagree on certain issues, other issues should be discussed and acted upon with deliberate speed. I don't agree with the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." At the same time, I have never heard anyone say "If it ain"
The state of college basketball is strong, but there are significant issues that need attention to keep it strong and make it sustainable. There are some areas to consider.
The Saint Peter's run to the Elite Eight in this year's tournament was discussed by three people.
There is a feeling that a void will be left after Mike Krzyzewski leaves the sideline. When John Wooden, Bob Knight, Dean Smith, Roy Williams and Jim Calhoun left the game, there was a void, and some of those programs have not yet been able to match the glory days of their tenure. Will Duke remain among the true elites and stay among the highest-rated and most compelling programs? Nobody knows. Jim Boeheim, Jim Larranaga, Leonard Hamilton and Bob McKillop will be next to exit the stage, which raises questions about what the game will look like in the future.
The coaching profession is deep with talent, and to the extent that Coach K is passing a baton to those remaining in the game, he is passing it to a deep pool of talent. Young coaches with shorter tenures such as Tommy Lloyd, Greg Gard, Juwan Howard, Chris Beard, Mark Adams and others are capable of carrying the game as established stars. We will miss the long shadows cast by Wooden, Smith, Knight, Williams and Calhoun, but what remains is great enough.
In the past couple of years, I've noticed that physical play and uncalled illegal contact are creeping back into the game and becoming embedded in it. The game has more experienced players than ever, and players are better and more skilled. Field goal percentages are down, fouls are down, and turnovers are up. The NCAA bureaucracy and the fact that nobody is really in charge are difficult issues for the game to address. Something has to be done, but there is still responsibility.
Several years ago, the game underwent a "freedom of movement" initiative where no new rules were implemented, but rules would be enforced as written and interpreted. In the first few years, it was successful and there were gains. The gains have been given back. The game has taken three steps back, and the game has turned into a much more physical contest.
This year's NCAA tournament is a good example of the issue. I was wrong to think that tournament games would be cleaner and closer. The NCAA supervisor of officials has no authority over the conduct of officials during the regular season. The NCAA supervisor has his bully pulpit, but the bureaucracy limits his authority. That needs to change.
The ability of the NCAA supervisor to mandate the way games are called fooled me, with the incentive that officials would not advance in the tournament if they failed to enforce the rules. The NCAA tournament was no different than the regular season in that it was a physical game with clear fouls going uncalled.
North Carolina blew a 25-point lead in the second half but still won 93-86 in overtime.
This isn't about missing a call or something. It's about actions going uncalled and recruiting plays. hyperbole that does not advance the argument is what makes college basketball unwatchable orruins the game. What is pointed out hurts the game, hurts the players and provides a diminished product on the floor.
The data supports the assertions. Six teams scored 70 or more points in the Sweet 16. The average score in the Sweet 16 was 66.6 points per game, the lowest in three years, and coincides with the start of the freedom of movement initiative. To find lower scoring outputs, one would have to go back to the 1980's. That is useful. Only two teams scored over 70 points, with four teams at 50 points or less. The college game looked a lot like the NBA of the 1990s according to one NBA coach. Again, not positive of the issue.
The game needs to do this. Those in charge of the game need to admit that there is a problem. Structural change is needed to allow for proper addressing of the problem and remedy it. If issues are not properly addressed and progress is not made, there needs to be accountability for those in charge. We can do better.
There is always a barrier to change in college basketball. It is said that college basketball is unique and that we don't want to be like the NBA. College basketball is played by young adults who are in school, not that the game has two halves instead of four quarters. The rules of play need to be addressed in a thoughtful way, and the antiquated thinking of "this has always been the way" needs to go away. Several rules changes should be considered by the college game.
Men's college basketball is the only game in the world that doesn't have quarters. It is not a question of being unique. After the first and third quarters, team fouls can be reset. The one-and-one will be eliminated and the number of free throws will be reduced by moving to quarters. After the fifth foul of a quarter, two shots will be awarded for every common foul thereafter. I don't agree with the argument that the one-and-one is necessary. The argument is that a player must make the first foul shot in order to earn the second foul shot. The second shot was earned because of a foul. The foul limited the offensive team's ability to get points. I think this rule change is necessary.
The game should value a primary defender in legal position guarding the position. I don't think that a secondary defender sliding under a driver that has won a path to the basket should be celebrated as much. It seems illogical to reduce physical play to celebrate a collision. The help defender can get into position before the offensive player leaves the floor. The standard for a help defender taking a charge should be moved back to when the offensive player begins his upward motion. I do not hear officials agreeing with this point in committee meetings. It is necessary to change this rule. I think it will make the game better.
The NBA, FIBA and women's college basketball all have a rule that allows the ball to be moved to the middle of the court late in the game. The Christian Laettner and Jalen Suggs moments would not happen with a rule change that gave up valuable real estate. The counter is that we would have more exciting, game-changing plays with the rule change. This change is not a must, but one that should be strongly considered and debated, as reasonable minds can differ on it.
The 3-point line was moved back a few years ago, but the lane was not widened to accommodate NBA and FIBA players. Those two things should have been done together. It isn't a magic bullet for reducing physical contact in the post area, but a wider lane should help.
The coaches are not going to like this one. The behavior of coaches toward officials needs to change. In the NBA, what is allowed by officials on the college level would never be allowed. The officials should be left alone by the coaches. If negative interaction can influence officials, it needs to stop. Negative interaction that doesn't influence officials is a bad look and affects public perception. Technical fouls should be called on all such behavior. There aren't any sacred cows on the sideline. The law of the court is the officials. A quick and emotional reaction to a call is not something that anyone is decrying. There is a line, and it is often crossed by coaches. The officials should not have to deal with such issues.
While we all want to get it right, there are too many monitor reviews that take too long. In the last minute of regulation and overtime, replay should be used for out-of-bounds calls. The two-minute mark is not a good time to review calls. A monitor review for a potential flagrant 2 foul should be allowed at any time during play, even if play has resumed. That makes sense.
The ease with which players can transfer and be immediately eligible offends some. I respect the opinion of those who don't like player movement and player rights. Unpaid students should be able to choose their destination. It's hard to believe that a high school player with no college experience should be required to make a binding commitment, even if he has college experience. The transfer portal has some problems, but can be fixed by regulation. One of those regulations should not force a player to sit out a year.
Several high-profile coaches are complaining about rival coaches recruiting transfers off of their rosters, and I think that is happening. The ethics of the coaching profession are more reflective of that phenomenon. Who should pay for the actions? Why should players be punished for unethical coaches? Valuable assets are players. Unless they are paid under contract, they should be allowed to move as they please.
Amateurism is no longer alive. Just like anyone else in our society and just like any other non-athletes student, players can now be paid for their name, image and likeness, as well as for promotional activities, appearances and for their talents outside of the field of play. Athletes don't have full economic rights. There are many in the game who are struggling with this new reality, which is contrary to the way the NCAA has done business over the last century. Collectives are being formed by every major conference school, and NIL enticements have moved into the recruiting realm, which was inevitable.
The NCAA is lobbying Congress for a national standard so that it can legally restrict and regulate what players can earn or accept. It seems ridiculous for a serial antitrust violator to ask Congress for an antitrust exemption, but that is what the NCAA is doing. It seems unlikely that the NCAA would be granted an exemption because of their low esteem on Capitol Hill. In my opinion, universities should sign players to contracts.
I had a great discussion with a college administrator aboutrationality. The amount of money an athlete can be paid is the subject of an argument. While I am a free-market advocate, it seemed reasonable to think about that. The amounts being offered to athletes are completely rational, as the biggest keys to success in college sports are due to athletes. It is running a billion dollar entertainment industry on college campuses. Competitive compensation to athletes is justified until that is addressed.
NIL is not going away now that we have it. Billions of dollars are being generated and no fans have turned away from the games. There will be an empty seat in New Orleans, because the games seem more popular than ever. Compensating athletes is not a problem.
The state of the game is strong, but can be stronger. It is hoped that the bureaucracy of the NCAA can be changed so that a strong game can get better. If we have the will to make positive changes and stop rationalizing continued inaction, it can be done.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
