OT: Apparently, college basketball is as bad as ever.

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
the 2002, 2003, 2006 were all garbage so you can cut that Stanley Cup beats anything Garbage.

From my perspective, the 06 playoffs was one of the most thrilling (and heartbreaking) of the last decade.

If you don't like Basketball why are you in this thread... And yes the fact a majority appriciate it does, because if they did the NHL would not be a late night joke punchline anymore.

If you're going to continually knock hockey and compare it unfavorably to almost every other sport (soccer, basketball, etc.), then why are you in this forum??

You are aware this this is a hockey forum, yes?

If you really think the sport is such a "late night joke punchline," then go hang out in a soccer forum. You seem like you'd be happier there.
 

kypredsfan

Smashville Subban
Jan 20, 2011
5,166
4
Mt. Juliet, TN
According to a lot college basketball people/fans I've talked to, last nights National Championship game was as maybe the worst ever, and the tournament is as bad as it's been and I also heard complaints about the championship game last year.

With two back to back bad National Championship games, could we see fans looking somewhere else for a sports to watch? (like the NHL)

Question for mods: Is it ok if I post link, to a thread from another forum where a fan(s) is ranting about this?

Well it's a good thing I didn't stay for the championship game then. I went down to cheer on my UK cats but they lost by 1 point. I don't think anybody can play well in a football stadium. Sucks too. I must say though, I've been on 5 hockey road trips with the Preds, 1 to Canada, and the Final Four experience was by far the best trip ever.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
From my perspective, the 06 playoffs was one of the most thrilling (and heartbreaking) of the last decade.



If you're going to continually knock hockey and compare it unfavorably to almost every other sport (soccer, basketball, etc.), then why are you in this forum??

You are aware this this is a hockey forum, yes?

If you really think the sport is such a "late night joke punchline," then go hang out in a soccer forum. You seem like you'd be happier there.
Because I have been a leaf fan for over 20 years and I don't know the first thing about soccer. I just look at things without bias. I am not even the only one saying this as you saw in the other thread. Many Canadians are angry with the state of the league.
 

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
Because I have been a leaf fan for over 20 years and I don't know the first thing about soccer. I just look at things without bias. I am not even the only one saying this as you saw in the other thread. Many Canadians are angry with the state of the league.

True, a lot of Canadians have an irrational hatred of Gary Bettman and the league's expansion in the US.

I wouldn't call that "looking at things without bias," though.
 

Fugu

Guest
True, a lot of Canadians have an irrational hatred of Gary Bettman and the league's expansion in the US.

I wouldn't call that "looking at things without bias," though.

What if you're not Canadian and have a rational hatred (dislike is a better word though) of Gary Bettman?
 

Fidel Astro

Registered User
Aug 26, 2010
1,362
53
Winnipeg, MB
www.witchpolice.com
Actually after the lockout, I caught myself watching a lot more NBA, NFL, NBA, NCAAB, and it took me a while to get back into hockey.

Do you think it happens the other way around, though? I know a lot of diehard hockey fans who also (kind of) enjoy basketball and football, but I don't know any diehard basketball fans who also enjoy hockey.

Actually, I don't know a lot of diehard basketball fans at all. I live in Canada.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,981
137,353
Bojangles Parking Lot
You do realize that college hoops supply the majority of the NBA players?

The top 8 scorers in the NBA played only five college seasons combined. Of the top 15, only one (Kevin Martin) played more than 2 years in college. Of the 18 players who average 20 points or more, only one (Danny Granger) actually graduated.

Of 58 players who average 14 points or more, only 5 played a senior season.

It's true that numerically the majority of NBA players were on a college roster at some point, but very few of them can really be called products of the NCAA.

Saw on Twitter that Butler's 18% shooting percentage in the game did just barely beat North Dakota's 16.7% shooting percentage over its last 2 NCAA hockey tournament games :laugh:

That's a great stat :handclap:
 

Rink Rage

Registered User
May 2, 2010
1,758
3
Phoenix, Arizona
Do you think it happens the other way around, though? I know a lot of diehard hockey fans who also (kind of) enjoy basketball and football, but I don't know any diehard basketball fans who also enjoy hockey.

Actually, I don't know a lot of diehard basketball fans at all. I live in Canada.

I know plenty of diehard basketball fans around that just don't have the time to follow both hockey and basketball.
 
Last edited:

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
True, a lot of Canadians have an irrational hatred of Gary Bettman and the league's expansion in the US.

I wouldn't call that "looking at things without bias," though.
I not of the Move all teams to Canada brigade, as many will tell you, but I still don't like the league in its current state. I'm with Fugu.
 

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
I not of the Move all teams to Canada brigade, as many will tell you, but I still don't like the league in its current state. I'm with Fugu.

Hey, I'm not saying that league is without it's flaws, problem areas, troubled franchises, etc.

But any unbiased view would acknowledge the tremendous growth in the league (especially in terms of revenues), the stability brought by the current CBA, the relatively stronger position it has gained in terms of television since the lockout, and other innovations which have increased its national exposure, such as the Winter Classic.

And even apart from the league, the participation in the sport of hockey has also experienced tremendous growth, especially at the youth level and in non-traditional markets. These developments are guaranteed to benefit the NHL in the long term.

Hockey isn't the biggest sport in North America, I know that. It doesn't need to be. But I think both that the sport is healthy and fine and growing, and that (apart from differences in size) the NHL is in as good a shape as any other pro league. I just don't get the pessimism.
 

Fugu

Guest
Hey, I'm not saying that league is without it's flaws, problem areas, troubled franchises, etc.

But any unbiased view would acknowledge the tremendous growth in the league (especially in terms of revenues), the stability brought by the current CBA, the relatively stronger position it has gained in terms of television since the lockout, and other innovations which have increased its national exposure, such as the Winter Classic.

Most of the revenue growth was due to more teams. TV dollars in the US actually have declined from their peak. Stability and the current CBA? Are you ignoring the mega-threads we have on this board?

I will grant you the Winter Classic, another great innovation from our friends to the north. (Heritage Classic)
And even apart from the league, the participation in the sport of hockey has also experienced tremendous growth, especially at the youth level and in non-traditional markets. These developments are guaranteed to benefit the NHL in the long term.

This is true, although some may question to what extent grassroots growth helps NHL teams. It is a positive thing in general nevertheless.


My point above was that you're highlighting existing biases with your own version. ;)
 

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
I will grant you the Winter Classic, another great innovation from our friends to the north. (Heritage Classic)

The Michigan-Michigan State game took place well before the Heritage Classic. (And the Kings-Rangers game in Vegas even earlier, but that was mostly an exhibition game gimmick.)

But in terms of putting on a big-time, meaningful hockey game in front of a huge crowd, the Heritage Classic wasn't the first to the idea. I'd give more credit to Michigan-Michigan State for getting that ball rolling.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
Hey, I'm not saying that league is without it's flaws, problem areas, troubled franchises, etc.

But any unbiased view would acknowledge the tremendous growth in the league (especially in terms of revenues), the stability brought by the current CBA, the relatively stronger position it has gained in terms of television since the lockout, and other innovations which have increased its national exposure, such as the Winter Classic.

And even apart from the league, the participation in the sport of hockey has also experienced tremendous growth, especially at the youth level and in non-traditional markets. These developments are guaranteed to benefit the NHL in the long term.

Hockey isn't the biggest sport in North America, I know that. It doesn't need to be. But I think both that the sport is healthy and fine and growing, and that (apart from differences in size) the NHL is in as good a shape as any other pro league. I just don't get the pessimism.


The NBA also has six teams going under. The NHL has a (barely) stable CBA and the NBA does not. That's the only thing preventing the NHL from being that type of mess. And still to me I want to see the NHL catch up, 2.9 billion is small for two leagues that are in trouble (NBA and MLB)
 

Moo

Moooooooooooooooo!
Jan 18, 2008
29,020
0
Valrico, FL
Two months of Stanley Cup playoffs beat a few weeks of college basketball any year, for drama, excitement, thrilling endings, etc.

The fact that a majority of people don't appreciate that fact doesn't change it.

But the SCP isn't one-and-done. March Madness is.

Sure, a four-OT game is exciting, but if it's only Game 2, that's not the same as an OT game in March Madness where the loser is absolutely done. Plus the SCP is significantly longer than the 12 days that March Madness uses.

In a way, comparing the two is probably apples and oranges, but regardless, the majority of Americans would rather go with March Madness than the NHL. You may disagree, but the ratings, the brackets, and overall forms of involvement will favor the NCAA over the NHL nearly every time.
 

kombayn

Registered User
May 6, 2009
223
6
The NBA also has six teams going under. The NHL has a (barely) stable CBA and the NBA does not. That's the only thing preventing the NHL from being that type of mess. And still to me I want to see the NHL catch up, 2.9 billion is small for two leagues that are in trouble (NBA and MLB)

The NBA is going to fix their mess through the lock-out, these guys are serious this time. The Hornets financial books are dismal and the Maloofs moving to Anaheim, CA at the Honda Center because they can't stay a float.

I really think they should look at contraction but not the Hornets & Kings but the Wolves & Bucks should contract, let Chicago own that market like they basically do. Let the Hornets & Kings jet to San Jose & Anaheim. Bigger pie for the owners, and a nice revenue-sharing plan and they're set. The NBA can go kill-switch with the NBAPA if they don't meet the demands and contract 2 teams.
 

HabsByTheBay

Registered User
Dec 3, 2010
1,216
22
London
True, a lot of Canadians have an irrational hatred of Gary Bettman and the league's expansion in the US.

I wouldn't call that "looking at things without bias," though.
The league's contraction in Canada would be a considerably better way to put it.

If Winnipeg and Quebec had teams, nobody would really care about Phoenix and Florida and all the other struggling Sun Belt teams. That they exist simply provides an incredibly easy stick to beat the NHL with.
 

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
But the SCP isn't one-and-done. March Madness is.

Best of seven provides better drama than a one-and-done.

Every best-of-seven is a story in itself. A drama. Mutual hatred builds over the course of a series. How will a team bounce back from a big hit? A bad performance? An injury? The tension gradually builds with each game until it reaches a crescendo.

One-and-done doesn't provide as much drama. Sure you're more likely to have fluke upsets in a single elimination, but what does that really tell you? Are the teams that pull upsets truly better?
 

Reality Check

Registered User
May 28, 2008
16,696
2,459
Nope.



Two months of Stanley Cup playoffs beat a few weeks of college basketball any year, for drama, excitement, thrilling endings, etc.

The fact that a majority of people don't appreciate that fact doesn't change it.

You forgot to include, IMO

I'll take March Madness over the stanley cup playoffs any day of the week
 

Mwd711

Registered User
Jan 20, 2006
624
0
Best of seven provides better drama than a one-and-done.

Every best-of-seven is a story in itself. A drama. Mutual hatred builds over the course of a series. How will a team bounce back from a big hit? A bad performance? An injury? The tension gradually builds with each game until it reaches a crescendo.

One-and-done doesn't provide as much drama. Sure you're more likely to have fluke upsets in a single elimination, but what does that really tell you? Are the teams that pull upsets truly better?

In general, we live in an instant gratification society. Watching a 7 game series takes up a lot more time than a one and done playoff. People either don't want to invest the time in it or they don't have the time to invest. People WANT to see the fluky upsets. That's what people love about the tournament - David VS. Goliath, and David does win sometimes. Not too many other sports have that. That's a huge draw for the casual sports fan. They could care less if that team actually has more talent - then want to see a good story and an upset is just that.

The other factor for the NCAA's success is simple - gambling. There's an easy reason to explain why the first several rounds on the tournament are seeing growing ratings while the finals are dropping and that's office pools and gambling. Even the novice fan has gotten involved in a bracket pool of some sort, so they have motivation to watch those early games. By the time that the finals arrive, those pools are essentially useless and the casual fan that's in a pool with his buddies has less reason to care about the final game. Unless it's a big name draw, or a competitive game, there's not much motivation for the casual fan to watch it when theres 100 other cable channels to be watching.
 

member 96824

Guest
Only somewhat.

Most top NBA prospects are one and done meaning they stay for one season at college and jump straight to the draft. The majority of players, however, stay four years, and frequently end up picked in the later round if at all. Duke leading scorer, JJ Redick wasn't picked till the second round of a 2 round draft. Villanova star Scottie Reynolds ended up in Europe. In fact, a vast majority of players head to Europe rather than the NBA.
.
:shakehead
I hate duke, and I hate Redick...but this post is completely wrong. JJ Redick was not only a first round pick, but he was a lottery pick at #11....so that's out the window.

and probably 95% of college stars end up in the NBA. You have a few exceptions, but for the most part...if you're seeing a stand out in college, they'll at least be a role player in the NBA. The college game is also the only place players from North America are coming from, unlike hockey where you have 1,000 different junior leagues and players coming from different leagues all around the world. While there are euro's to pick from in the NBA, it's not nearly the same parity as the NHL. The college game is where the NBA players come from. While yes, some role players who want to keep going will head over to europe or play in the D-league(NBA's minor league) after college...the majority of names you'll recognize go onto the NBA.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,981
137,353
Bojangles Parking Lot
and probably 95% of college stars end up in the NBA. You have a few exceptions, but for the most part...if you're seeing a stand out in college, they'll at least be a role player in the NBA. The college game is also the only place players from North America are coming from, unlike hockey where you have 1,000 different junior leagues and players coming from different leagues all around the world. While there are euro's to pick from in the NBA, it's not nearly the same parity as the NHL. The college game is where the NBA players come from. While yes, some role players who want to keep going will head over to europe or play in the D-league(NBA's minor league) after college...the majority of names you'll recognize go onto the NBA.

There are a lot of things in this post which are describing the NBA as it existed a decade ago or more.

1) "The college game is the only place players from North America are coming from" - This is partially true of recent draftees, but as recently as 2004 there were 8 high-school picks in the first round. The current crop of NBA superstars (Bryant, James, Howard) were high school selections. And even now, with an age limit in place, you still have guys going to the D-league or Europe rather than college.

2) "There are fewer Euros drafted than in the NHL" - 2009 was the first year in a long time that the NBA drafted fewer Euros in its 2 rounds than the NHL drafted in its first 2 rounds.

3) "The majority of names you'll recognize go onto the NBA" - 16 of the top-5 picks since 2006 were freshmen or sophomores (and 2 were from Europe). Most of them went to college only to satisfy the NBA age requirement. By the time you recognize a player, he's gone. It's hard to call him a "product" of NCAA basketball in any substantial way... he's only had a cup of coffee there.
 

Roomtemperature

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
5,846
683
New Jersey
There are a lot of things in this post which are describing the NBA as it existed a decade ago or more.

1) "The college game is the only place players from North America are coming from" - This is partially true of recent draftees, but as recently as 2004 there were 8 high-school picks in the first round. The current crop of NBA superstars (Bryant, James, Howard) were high school selections. And even now, with an age limit in place, you still have guys going to the D-league or Europe rather than college.

2) "There are fewer Euros drafted than in the NHL" - 2009 was the first year in a long time that the NBA drafted fewer Euros in its 2 rounds than the NHL drafted in its first 2 rounds.

3) "The majority of names you'll recognize go onto the NBA" - 16 of the top-5 picks since 2006 were freshmen or sophomores (and 2 were from Europe). Most of them went to college only to satisfy the NBA age requirement. By the time you recognize a player, he's gone. It's hard to call him a "product" of NCAA basketball in any substantial way... he's only had a cup of coffee there.

1) Players going straight from High school was an exception not the rule. Hell they only made the one and done rule because so many high schoolers had agents getting into their head that they were better then they were and skipping college despite having no chance to be drafter in the first round and an iffy second rounder at best.

2) Well it helps that there are only 2 rounds in the NBA draft then waiting til the 3rd round plus in the NHL to take the project or unknown from Europe

3) Its still a very public showing that kids get from even that one year in college. Plus with how public high school scouting is the basketball watching public know who to watch for before hand and watch them from the first game on.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
The NBA is going to fix their mess through the lock-out, these guys are serious this time. The Hornets financial books are dismal and the Maloofs moving to Anaheim, CA at the Honda Center because they can't stay a float.

I really think they should look at contraction but not the Hornets & Kings but the Wolves & Bucks should contract, let Chicago own that market like they basically do. Let the Hornets & Kings jet to San Jose & Anaheim. Bigger pie for the owners, and a nice revenue-sharing plan and they're set. The NBA can go kill-switch with the NBAPA if they don't meet the demands and contract 2 teams.

Great Post. I would keep Minnesota, but when Kohl Dies move the bucks to Des Plaines or Rosemont. Anaheim should not be an option, 3 NBA teams in LA will cause more stability. They should stop the nonsense and go to vegas.
The league's contraction in Canada would be a considerably better way to put it.

If Winnipeg and Quebec had teams, nobody would really care about Phoenix and Florida and all the other struggling Sun Belt teams. That they exist simply provides an incredibly easy stick to beat the NHL with.

Bingo.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->