« Covering Tibet | Main | TV Stuff » Madness Continued15 Mar 2008 01:03 pm J.J. Adande presses the case against college hoops: Excessive use of the word "Cinderella." It comes up in the NBA, just not as often. Google search hits for "George Mason Cinderella": 355,000. Google search hits for "Golden State Warriors Cinderella": 70,000. And I dare any writer to go up to Stephen Jackson and compare him to a fairy-tale princess. And, yes, I know nobody agrees with me about this. Comments (63)
Look, NBA basketball day-to-day is obviously of higher quality than college basketball. But March Madness is just flat-out awesome. I certainly try harder to make room for early- and mid-round Tournament games than I do for NBA playoff games that feature teams I don't care about. 
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Yes, the predictability of the NBA is one of its most distinguishing features. I look forward to another Finals between the Pistons and Spurs.
Matt Yglesias is raining on our parade.
That college basketball sucks? Yea, everyone agrees. That's certainly my impression. But March Madness can be fun.
The boxing movie Cinderella Man was actually very good, but its prissy title undermined any chance it had at popularity. So perhaps college basketball's popularity despite the overuse of "Cinderella" is a testament to the depth of its appeal. Or perhaps "Cinderella" has a perverse effect. Making the truly good unpopular but substantially broadening the appeal of the substandard
Most fans would rather see close finishes and huge upsets than higher quality play. That's why March Madness is so popular.
Yglesias can't touch rim.
Matt, I know people have posed that your bizarre hatred of college sports comes from the fact that you went to an Ivy. If that's true, just get your PhD at Michigan or Virginia - and spend some time around the culture. Because you're starting to sound a little like Mark Penn on this subject. The American people have voted, and they like March Madness more than many things, including the NBA regular season and most, if not all, of the playoffs and finals, especially if it's the Spurs v. the Pistons. G'town and UCLA in conference finals today - can't beat that, for me, anyway. I also can't wait to see if the Lakers can stop the Rockets streak tomorrow - but absent that streak, it's just another fairly boring, semi-meaningless (yes, first place is on the line, but so what, really?) regular season NBA game (and without Yao Ming - which makes the streak more impressive, but the game itself less interesting).
The whole idea of a Cinderella is someone who wasn't even supposed to be at "the ball", the big dance. All of the NBA teams have a standing invitation to their ball, the postseason -- even if not all of them qualify -- so none of them can ever properly be considered Cinderellas. NCAA teams, on the other hand, can be Cinderellas -- if they weren't even supposed to be there because they're a no-name team or a small college, but then they end up doing well in the tourney.
Cinderella wasn't a princess, just a poor girl who made good.
Why is this overuse? George Mason was, at best, considered the #41 team in the country going into that tournament; in any given year, any given NBA team can be no worse than #30, and a playoff team can be no worse than #16. If we assume the relationship between Cinderellaness and use of the term is exponential, this is totally fine.
DJ Moon Bat hit the nail on the head. The appeal of March Madness doesn't lie in the quality of play so much as it does in the stories that develop. In many respects, the appeal derives from the fact that the quality of play is in fact significantly less impressive than in the NBA. The reduced talent is what makes for so many nail-biting games and the possibility of a "Cinderella" story. In short, the NBA is about professionalism and athletic achievement where as March Madness is about the "drama." As a sports fan, it's not very difficult to embrace and appreciate both of these things.
Agree with socaljustice. Here's what's not fun about the NBA: living in New Orleans, waiting for a football crazy town to realize the beauty of Chris Paul (wow!!!). In college basketball, if you got a good team, you'll get a fun experience at the game (given the fandom). This isn't always true of the NBA, where even the players feel look bored sometimes. And really MY, with the election, a book and day-time Ellen to watch, do you really have time for 82 games? I'll take 30 and three fun-filled weekends for its pleasure/time ratio.
Uh, I just tried the same search and got 70,000 as promised for golden state warriors cinderella but only 68,700 for george mason cinderella. So much for that theory.
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew --
I agree with Mark: lots of people acknowledge that college basketball sucks, and that the NBA is a much better basketball product. I would bet that you could find a fair number of people who would go the next step, and acknowledge that major college basketball is a morally corrupt enterprise in which basically useless college coaches carve cash out of the backs of kids who are, in some cases, legally prevented from jumping college to get on with their careers.
I got 235,000 hits just by typing in "Cinderella goat." I don't know if that indicates more about college hoops or bestiality.
Exactly right, Matt, nobody agrees with you about this. As a matter of fact, I don't recall anyone ever, either in the media or personally to me, expressing a preference for the NBA over the college game. I used to think it pretty cool that you disperse some basketball posts into your blog, but now it strikes me as just weird. My perceptions of the blogger's good taste have been dashed. The NBA sucks, Matt. College hoops are more fun to watch, and I frankly can't my head around the idea that anyone who appreciates basketball could see it any differently.
Bloggers of the world whose alma maters had sports teams, unite! Matt, you're wrong, and over at firedoglake (so I hear), they're setting up robocalls to your house and all the teams in conference championships right now.
I agree with Matt, because seeing the Cavs and the Wizards play in another series that just might go to five games would be soooooooooooooooo much more exciting than seeing small conference teams like Kent State or Xavier pull improbable upsets. Or seeing awesome teams like UCLA or UNC pull out air-tight victories in the last minute. That's just lame.
People like watching games where the best team will probably not win. Hence the attraction to "one and done" tournaments. The way to have the best team win the championship is to play in series, to reduce the value of the lucky game. But the casual college fan doesn't give a shit about the best team. They like the idea of teams with massive recruiting advantages getting punched in the stomach by a buzzer beater. I wish the NBA playoffs were like March Madness. Then the Raptors would have a shot.
You, sir, are a crazy person. Stop your crazy talk, crazy person.
America does not "like" the NCAA Tourney more than the NBA. America "likes betting on the Tourney in office pools" better than the NBA. Fact is, most people don't give a shit about basketball but still like the tourney. And not because it makes them like basketball. It's because the NCAAs (like the Oscars) are very conducive to betting. No true basketball fan would ever say college hoops is better than the NBA. There is simply no comparison. As to the idiot who said he'd rather watch some craptastic college team eke out a small win against a far-superior but choking elite college basketball team in the tourney instead of say watching the best basketball player alive (LeBron James) play one of the best trios alive (Gilbert, Caron, Jamison) play a 7 game series. Idiot, you don't like basketball. You like the tourney. And as great as the tourney is, it's greatness has nothing to with basketball and everything to do with format. If it was about basketball, real fans would chose better players playing best of 7 over what the tournament offers every time.
College sports doesn't even pretend that it is not corrupt to the core. Coaches make millions, announcers make excellent cash, tv makes billions, gamblers and touts make what they can, but give a player a discount on shoes and a heavily logoed track suit and it's a scandal. How many of you NCAA lovers would work for the kind of power trippin bullies colleges hire as the faces of their institutions? The system is about using kids for the entertainment and profit of adults.
Matthew, I agree with you completely. I feel like I am one of the few people who prefers the NBA to college basketball. Of course, this is probably due to the fact that my alma mater, Cal, will not be in the NCAA tournament this year. Although even when Cal does make it, they usually exit in the first or second round. I am not a big fan of the "cinderella" teams. It always feels like these teams play hard and beat one big name college, then fold the next game and get blown out by another college (that wasn't as good as the first). It seems like the NCAA tournament is more hype than substance. There may be a few exciting games, but most are pretty ho-hum.
Matt is an urban sophisticate. Why watch the boys when the men are so much better. Besides, college sports is big because there is nothing to do in the majority of the country. One of the reasons Los Angeles is such great basketball town is that it has both the Lakers and UCLA.
Matt is an urban sophisticate. Why watch the boys when the men are so much better. Besides, college sports is big because there is nothing to do in the majority of the country. One of the reasons Los Angeles is such great basketball town is that it has both the Lakers and UCLA.
Anybody else see the irony in somebody calling themselves "Just the Facts" when they also frequently call another person an "idiot"? Look, I love basketball, and I love the NBA, and obviously the quality of play is superior in the NBA. But the structure of the postseason in college hoops is exciting. It's not just about the office pools, but the fact that so much is built upon each game. There is a new set of players each tournament. Most of these people will not play in the NBA, and many who do won't be very impressive at that level, so this is their time to shine. It's one of their last chances to excel at doing what they've been doing most of their lives: playing basketball. I guess I'm an idiot for thinking that that's more exciting than seeing the same people play each other all year only to play each other for seven games, and then seven more games, and then seven more games, and then, wouldn't you know it, seven more games. And, yeah, I love it because I love the NBA. I'm not even so sure I want to change it, as I think it's interesting and most of the games are usually pretty good. But as far as excitement goes, it doesn't touch the tournament. But that just means I don't like basketball. It's so obvious! Like liberalism and fascism being interchangeable.
Yes, Struhar, you are an idio. You chose unknown, sub-par players over the best athletes in the world. You do so not because the basketball is better, but because you like the format. By this logic, you should go watch high school tournaments. And you are also an idiot for saying that you "love the NBA" when before you said you'd rather watch Kent State in a first or second round tourney game than watch LeBron James in the playoffs. I'm not saying you don't feel that way - I'm saying you're an idiot because you pretend to like basketball but really like the tourney format. You're like the bandwagoners in the office, pretending to like basketball but really wanting to win the office pool. Seriously, you want to watch Kent State and Xavier over LeBron James? That's practically un-American. You're a joke.
The NBA playoffs are great, no question. And this year's stretch run in the Western Conference will be fantastic as well. The reason? The stakes are high, and every game means something. That's of course also true during March Madness. And what's undeniable is that it's more true, overall, during the college basketball regular season than it is during the interminable NBA schedule. The main reason that many fans find the NBA regular season boring is that despite the fact that these are the best players in the world, they're often not fully exerting themselves. This isn't true of every team - the Warriors, for example, have given maximum effort most nights this year. But the real game in the NBA is getting into the playoffs and being ready to play your best basketball in April and May. College basketball, with its shorter season, doesn't give teams the same luxury.
"Fans" don't find the NBA regular season boring. Non-fans do. If they were fans, they'd be fans... But sorry, college basketball is not college football - watching Memphis, smash through a conference where every game is against a patsy is not exciting. Watching "big" schools schedule games against small schools before conference play is not exciting, and frankly is not about college teams "fully exerting themselves." It's about padding their schedules. Yes, some conferences (PAC-10 this year) give great play, but at the same time you can't tell me any regular season game between NBA powers isn't as or even more exciting. Whenever they play, Lakers-Phoenix, Boston-Detroit, Dallas-Golden State, etc, are amazing games played at the very highest level. In college, they may be amazing games (but by definition not at the highest level). Anyway, it's just not true that the college basketball regular season is more exciting than the NBA regular season, or even "more important". And really, in college you could be the worst team getting into the tourney, but you still get to play on a neutral court every game, whereas in the NBA if you're the worst seed in the playoffs you lose home court advantage for the playoffs. Plus, the idea the college kids play harder than NBA guys doesn't cut it for me. First, there's zero empirical proof of that. But even in theory, why would this be? College kids play harder because for them it's just a game, but for pros it's for money? Logic would dictate the opposite. As to fans, the tourney has great fans, but they are simply NOT in the arenas when the teams play. Seeing Duke play at home is one thing, but seeing them play in the tourney will never have the same feeling because of so many "neutral" fans. The NCAAs ain't like bowl games, where schools really travel. There is simply ZERO comparison between hearing the fans in a Final Four contest vs. hearing them in say Golden State or Boston or Utah during the playoffs.
As a matter of fact, I do like watching high school basketball. But that's aside the point. In Matt's last anti-college hoops post, somebody made a point that Matt's preferred style of basketball would be all the best players playing each other in a one-on-one tournament. After all, the efficiency ratings would be tremendous. Kevin made a good point: you don't see the kind of exertion throughout the regular season in the NBA that you see in college hoops. You also don't have college teams losing in order to hedge their bets on a better draft pick. Besides, by your logic, "Just the Facts," we should always want to see the best basketball players no matter what, regardless of the format. But can you really separate the format from the game? I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing the shorter NBA-length shot clock applied to the college game, and that aspect of the format leads to more exciting games. The same is true of tournament-style play, when you see weaker teams have a better opportunity to win and advance to the next level than they would in a series-based system. The higher frequency of change in the match-ups also forces teams to be more adaptable, not to mention the fact that, unlike the NBA, many of these teams haven't played each other in the regular season. Also, by your logic, we should always prioritize watching the best NBA match-up of the night over watching the game with the most riding on it (a playoff spot, etc.), because according to you, it's always the case that the game with the best players is the best game. Of course, that is not the case. I bet the Final Four this year will be more interesting than the NBA Finals, which will feature the Western Conference Champions making the East look like the crap conference that it is.
Struhar, why in the world would you want the worst team to win? Isn't the point to find out who the better team is? And the idea that you think the West will roll over the East in the NBA just show you haven't been paying attention - the Boston Celtics and Detroit Pistons are as good or better than any of the teams in the West, which you'd know if you'd been watching. It's not that so many teams have just risen in the West this year, it's the power of the last couple years - San Antonio, Phoenix & Dallas - have lost their edge. But of course, NBA regular season doesn't matter to you as much as hoping for a Kent State victory over UCLA in the first round, so you can then watch an overmatched Kent State team get blown out in the second round. Fun, fun... I can agree with you about the 40 second clock in college basketball making a lot of games unwatchable. Ever watch Wisconsin in the tourney. Ugh. Yes, it helps bad teams win games. So does zone defense. It also makes the games ugly.
"I don't recall anyone ever, either in the media or personally to me, expressing a preference for the NBA over the college game." Allow me to express my intense preference for the NBA.
Foulness, I do think the padding of schedules is problematic, but it's also a problem in college football, and I actually think it's an even bigger problem in college football. You don't have anything that really compares to the Big 10-ACC challenge early in the college football season. Instead, perennial Big 10 champions Ohio State really enjoy playing Youngstown State and a couple of MAC schools before having to play (oh no!) Northwestern, Indiana, and Minnesota. Granted, the college football regular season is more exciting because even more is riding on it than the college basketball regular season. But the reason for less exertion in the NBA is pretty logical: it's a much, much longer season. Players have to pace themselves. LeBron isn't going to be able to play balls-to-the-wall for forty-eight minutes every night. That's a problem with the format of the regular season. I really don't hold it against the players or teams, just the format. Also, the exertion in the NBA playoffs is beyond doubt. What I reject is the idea that somehow format is irrelevant, and we should always want to watch the games that feature the best players, which is based on the incorrect assumption that better players equals better games.
Struhar, by your logic, you'd rather watch Podunk East vs. Podunk West if the game came down to a last second half court shot, rather than watching LeBron James go 35/13/11 in a game Cleveland wins by 15. Which I imagine is actually what you're saying? What I'm saying is that you are not expressing a preference for "good basketball" you are expressing a preference for "close games." You sound like you'd be a great youth soccer coach - make sure everyone plays regardless of skill level, and that the games are close and "exciting." I'll stick with the best athletes in the world, thank you very much.
Basic flaw in logic: the fact that the players are more talented does not, in and of itself, mean the basketball being played is of higher quality. The talent, along with the short shot clock, means that the preferred method is largely dependent on one on one basketball, resulting in lots of shots being jacked up with 2 seconds on the clock and lots of dribble moves against a single defender. That the players jacking up those shots does not mean that the basketball is of high quality. "Plus, the idea the college kids play harder than NBA guys doesn't cut it for me. First, there's zero empirical proof of that. But even in theory, why would this be? College kids play harder because for them it's just a game, but for pros it's for money? Logic would dictate the opposite." This is too easy. College kids play harder because the games are more meaningful. All of which means, they play harder. Seriously, do you even watch the games? "I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing the shorter NBA-length shot clock applied to the college game, and that aspect of the format leads to more exciting games." Wrong. More passing (up to a point, you clearly want a shot clock) makes for a more interesting game. An astoundingly high ratio of non-fastbreak shots in the NBA are last second, one on one, jackups, the definition of boring basketball.
JTF, but the bad teams in the East are even worse this year than they were the year before, so while I do think Detroit or Boston could win it all (my comment was a gross generalization), and if either won it all I wouldn't be surprised, I'm just saying in general the West would dominate the East. And no, it's not about the best team winning. It's just cool to see upsets happen, like the Giants beating the Pats. Or, better yet, I don't want to see the Cavs lose to the Pistons and/or the Celtics simply because they're the worse team because, after all, I'm a Cavs' fan. Also, I doubt Kent State will draw a mere 16th seed (since they could probably beat my team, Ohio State, but who couldn't this year?), but in that case, obviously I wouldn't want them to beat UCLA because I'm most likely picking UCLA to go all the way (the PAC-10 was exceptional this year). According to you, after all, this is all about the office pool. I disagree with you about zone defenses, as I don't have any objection to a team of poor individual defensive players being able to work together to form a more effective defense against teams that are really strong inside. Of course, this creates many problems if the opposing team has good perimeter shooting.
A couple of observations about this discussion: 1) The tradeoff of talent for effort or format or whatever is not absolute. That is, it's perfectly logical to say that you prefer to watch UCLA-G'town, even if they're less talented than Lakers-Wizards, and yet not prefer to watch a team of 10-year-olds from LA play a bunch of 10-year-olds from DC. 2) There's a lot to be said for variety for its own sake. It's interesting to see players you've never seen before and teams you've never seen playing unfamiliar styles. This almost never happens in the NBA, but is more likely in the NCAA's. Matt, you're probably too young to remember Pete Carill's Princeton teams, but even though they weren't athletically gifted it really was fascinating to watch them play a style of basketball that was last popular in the 1940s or 1950s, and have success in the tournament against the powerhouses of college basketball. And they were playing in the same tournaments as Jerry Tarkanian's Runnin' Rebs. 3) Format does matter, and is part of the appeal of the variety. Let me bring up possibly the most boring topic imaginable to Matt: college baseball. There's no doubt at all that college baseball players are nowhere near as good as major leaguers. And yet the College World Series used to be a really fascinating tournament. It used to be a round-robin, double-down tournament: the 8 teams played round-robin, and when a team lost its second game they were out. The last team standing was the winner. This meant that sometimes the "final" was between an undefeated team and a once-defeated team -- which meant that the undefeated team only needed to split to win the CWS, while their opponent needed to win 2 in a row. This made for a really cool, fun tournament. They changed it to a standard quarters-semis-finals format, I think because CBS wanted to have a definitive Final. It's no longer as interesting to watch.
If you're watching college basketball, you're watching bad basketball. You just are. The college game now is probably as bad or worse than it has ever been. Go compare the college games now to tapes from twenty years ago, when the most talented players stayed long enough to learn the system. Now? Gawd, it's nearly unbearable. They shoot worse, they pass worse, they defend very poorly. It's excruciating. If people enjoy it, they enjoy it. Who cares why? There's nothing wrong with that enjoyment. What's wrong is ascribing that enjoyment to better or a different style of basketball.
The argument that NBA players try harder than their college counterparts because they're paid would make more sense if compensation were more closely linked to performance. As is the case, for example, in pro golf and tennis, and even in the NFL, where contracts are not guaranteed. NBA players have a financial incentive to try hard early in their careers, but not so much after they hit their late 20s or early 30s and sign long-term contracts.
Neither is better than baseball.
Please, the number of Google hits is a ridiculous way to gauge the popularity of a concept, especially if you don't use Advanced Search, group your terms (quotation marks), and require them all (+). +"Golden State" +Warriors +Cinderella So the original article was dead wrong, even on its own dubious terms. But aside from that, if I have to read another article/blog post about how popular politics Windows ice cream is (284,000 hits), I will definitely puke.
Exactly. The cinderella stories are the most annoying part of the NCAA tournament. The seedings are a crontrived way to create the illusion of huge upsets (an 8 seed beat a 3 seed!!). Moreover, it's very hard for any amateur team to win 6 in a row, even if they really are better than any other team in their bracket. So the whole thrill of the tournament doesn't seem to be seeing two great teams go toe to toe (like, e.g. the NBA finals), but rather the thrill of seeing a good team get beat by a worse team. The saddest thing about the tournament is that people remember the stunning upsets of these cinderellas more than they remember the actual champions. I like sports that resemble meritocracies, but I guess a lot of people like sports that are like lotteries where any loser can get lucky. I'm sure some of the popularity of the college game comes from college alumni who understandably follow their alma mater, and also from white fans who prefer to watch a version of the sport where non-European whites actually get on the court. But some of it has to come from a kind of vulgar egalitarianism which loves to see luck and "heart" beat better talent.
The popularity of the NCAA TOURNEY comes down to non-fans liking to fill in their brackets and gambling. It's that simple. All other explanations are some form of bullshit.
I started to read that link, but then I remember that J.J. Adende makes some of his income by appearing on Around the Horn, and that, as a result, I couldn't possibly care what he thinks about anything. It's always bothered me that many fans think that major college sports are somehow purer and less corrupted by money than the pros. But when it comes down to men's college basketball and the NBA, there are more similarities than differences -- each has a long and pretty meaningless regular season, followed by a postseason which is usually exciting. The difference of course is that the NCAA tournament is WAY more fun to gamble on...
The true appeal of March Madness is to witness a bunch of Ivy league students be called an "underdog" for the first time in their life.
people quite understandably prefer to watch sporting events where the outcome is uncertain. that's rarely the case in the nba. take last year's western conference playoffs -- no real doubt that spurs would beat nuggets, jazz, and then cavs, only interesting series was against the suns (and many thought the spurs should have won that one too, so even the suspensions didn't really change the expected result). that's why this year's western conference run is so fascinating -- it's almost entirely unpredictable, in part because the old favorites look more old than favorite. by contrast, the tourney has an extraordinary number of games go down to the wire, the drama's insane and . . . it's watchable. even if you love the nba, you have to admit that the 4th quarter of any tight game can just take waaaaaaay too much time. in college, by contrast, they just pretty much play it out. i love the nba, but college games are almost invariably more entertaining throughout. put another way, how much do you really care what happens in the first half of an nba playoff game? it really just doesn't matter much generally. disliking the tournament is pretentiousness run riot. get over it.
To the guy who said college is better because there is better passing, you've got to be joking. Passing in college means wasting the 40 second clock while you pass it around the perimeter because of a zone. That is not pretty basketball. What Steve Nash and Chris Paul do is pretty passing. What you're talking about is why college basketball sucks. I'm not saying the tourney sucks. It's fun. But it ain't like seeing the best athletes in the world play in the NBA. Plus, the college 3 is a joke. It makes for a ridiculous game. Needs to be moved back at least 2 feet.
40 second clock It's a 35 second clock.
"40 second clock It's a 35 second clock." Thanks, apostropher, for the correction. I'd like to point out that someone signing their name as "Just the Facts" was the first to make that error in this thread. What I don't get about this debate is why NBA fans go so stark raving mad about the idea that people might like to watch another form of basketball. If they are so completely confident of the superiority of that sports product, just ignore the rest and be happy that you're not forced to pay attention to it (no really, you could avoid college b-ball if you really tried). Foaming at the mouth to convince people otherwise might make sense if you had a supposedly superior but ignored product, but I'd think people pay enough attention to the NBA that you wouldn't be acting up w/ what looks and feels like a classic inferiority complex.
"What Steve Nash and Chris Paul do is pretty passing." Absolutely, in contrast to most other teams. Almost no other NBA teams have anybody close to them. Most teams have passers more in Mr. Marbury's neighborhood. You are right about the length of the 3, though, even if you do think there's a 40 second clock. Oh, yeah, I did think of one other reason to watch the pros. There one can keep up with how well all the ex-Heels are doing, and it's another way to keep score vs. the Blue Devils. After years of total dominance, the Doherty era (Doh!) left the Heels a bit dry on that front (with Duke weighing in heavily with Boozer, Duhon, Deng and, yes, even Maggette), but this too is passing. Almost as well as Nash and Paul ...
And, oh by the way, this year's Heels, assuming a completely healthy Ty Lawson (not the 60% edition gaming it out there now) would beat the Wiz, suiting it up for 40 with a 35 second clock. One and out or best of 7 ...
Kent State is not going to play UCLA in the first round. Kent State is likely to be a 12 or 13 seed. The structure of the tournament instantly gives everyone a dozen little guys to root for. I have no horse in the NBA playoffs because the Knicks are the suck.
Kent State is not going to play UCLA in the first round. Kent State is likely to be a 12 or 13 seed. If Mount St. Mary's was to beat UCLA, the sports world would have a collective faint and it would be like Appalachian State-Michigan. That was a great sports moment no matter what time of the season it was. That Appalachian State then went on to win the FCS was irrelevant. The structure of the tournament instantly gives everyone a dozen little guys to root for. I have no horse in the NBA playoffs because the Knicks are the suck.
Because a team from a little conference beats an overrated team from a big conference doesn't mean that team was worse. It may simply mean that the team from the little conference had worse competition. You want to see the teams from the little conferences do well because it means that the playing field is for everyone.
And if the little conference begins to develop a reputation, it can become a medium-sized conference, like the Missouri Valley.
"The talent, along with the short shot clock, means that the preferred method is largely dependent on one on one basketball, resulting in lots of shots being jacked up with 2 seconds on the clock and lots of dribble moves against a single defender" The person who wrote this apparently hasn't watched an NBA game since 2003. J.A. Adande makes a great point in that column: any basketball player who slaps the floor deserves to be slapped upside the head. I'd like to see an NBA defender try that crap.
America does not "like" the NCAA Tourney more than the NBA. If you measure "like" by TV ratings and ad revenue, then America "likes" March Madness by a factor of 2 to 1 over the NBA. America "likes betting on the Tourney in office pools" better than the NBA. Of course, and that is one of reasons why America likes (read: twice as many Americans watch and advertisers spend double on it than they do on the NBA playoffs) it more. It's not because the college game is highly skilled or "better." But there's a mass appeal thing happening. Sort of like Thomas Kinkead or John Grisham - "crap" that people like better than the good stuff, because it's packaged and marketed better and much more fun.
"The person who wrote this apparently hasn't watched an NBA game since 2003." Actually, I (for example) watched the amazing 2006 playoffs almost end to end. Which meant, of course, that the 2007 playoffs (including the 'somebody in the Spurs organization must have naked pix of David Stern' suspensions and suspension scheduling) left a very bad taste in my mouth, and not just for that reason. I don't hate the Spurs as such (having been an admirer of Duncan since WF days), but ... seriously, if 2006 was Godfather or Godfather 2, 2007 was Godfather 3. Not to mention the aforementioned Doherty era, which left me having to admit for a brief couple of years that the Duke alumni could not only field a team, but probably beat the UNC alumni. That time will end shortly, so it will be safe for me to return.
The "better quality basketball" argument is bogus. Sports are entertainment. The NCAA tournament as a whole is vastly more entertaining, by orders of magnitude, than anything the NBA has to offer. On another note, nearly every team in the NBA plays essentially the same style of basketball and runs the same basic plays. College basketball offers a far more diverse array of styles of play, on offense and defense, more opportunity for strategy to affect game outcomes, and more intriguing contrasts in matchups.
Comments closed March 29, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What? That college basketball sucks? Yea, everyone agrees.
Posted by Mark | March 15, 2008 1:41 PM