Is this a good reason to enjoy college basketball as opposed to the NBA?

I'll say that I prefer college ball specifically because of the 24-second clock (and I'm not a fan of 35 -- think it should go back to 45 or even 60).

24 seconds isn't enough time to do much more than get the ball up the floor, run a quick-hitter set play and that's about it. Most sets only involve 3 people -- a ball-screen & roll and a cutter off a screen away.

Unfortunately, college ball has begun to devolve to that level with the shortening of the clock to 35 seconds. It's either a quick-hitter or spread the floor, get your fastest player to drive and kick out to guys spotting up at the 3 line.

I enjoy a good pass-cut-screen offense, e.g. a motion or Princeton set, but there's not enough time for that in the NBA, therefore it tends to look like guys are just standing around while two guys are playing one-on-one.

 

In my opinion, race is a big issue. The NBA is predominantly black. There are few true white superstars and by white I mean those who are born in the United States. That is a turnoff to many. In college basketball, there are white superstars. To some that is a turnoff.
The same holds true with college football.
Personally, regardless of color, I enjoy watching the best play. That's the NFL and the NBA.

 

@93 Devil,

There are 30 NBA teams, so of course only 4-6 have a legit chance of winning it all.

There are 320 Division I teams, so of course there are more that have the chance at getting to the sweet 16.

Off the top of my head: Boston, Miami, Orlando, L.A. Lakers, San Antonio, Dallas, Chicago, Utah....that's eight right there and you can also throw in the Thunder and someone like Denver.

10 teams who I wouldn't be shocked, nobody would, if any of them ended up in a conference final.....So I'm thinking your numbers and logic are just a little flawed

 

I simply cannot watch the NBA, because I don't care. My team sucks so I have no rooting interest. My college team sucks too, but I can atleast root for the underdogs.

Plus, too often I will turn on an NBA game and watch one poward forward back down another, then take a fadeway. WOW! Exciting. Meanwhile, 8 other players are standing there doing nothing. All of the NBA teams do that.

In college you have something different. I don't like Michigan State basketball but I love to watch them. Those guys are constantly moving. Fast breaks are like normal speed to them. It's awesome. I can't remember when I ever saw an NBA team run all out like State does.

And lets talk about highlights, dunking and charges and stuff. How does Blake Griffin get to facepalm a guy as he dunks? I hate that you can't take charges. It is fundamental defense. I want to see charges more than I want to see Griffin jumping in the air, and plowing over a guy because of some painted circle on the floor.

Let's see, what else sucks about the NBA? Well, for instance there's the piped in music and sound effects, the huge inflated egos of the superstars - probably more than any other sport.

 

This is some real bullshit.

Pretty much EVERY NBA team plays the same offense: walk-it-up, milk-the-clock stall-ball. With slight superficial variations due to personnel.

Game paces (and scoring) have risen slightly in the last couple of years, but are still dramatically lower than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. NBA teams overall attempt 25% fewer field goals than they did in the 1980s (and the 1960s).

The reason that college basketball CAN be (sometimes) more entertaining than the NBA is that there is some variation in the actual style of play. Not every single team plays the same exact offense and defense, as is the case in the NBA.

MOST upper-level college teams play styles very similar to NBA sludge-ball (they have to, in order to recruit top talent) but there are actual stylistic variations between teams. However, the phenomenon of monkey-see monkey-do homogenization has also spread throughout college and down to HS ball (where game paces are also way down from 20-30 years ago).

Of course the idea that fans get some big thrill out of watching teams play catch on the perimeter for 45 or 60 seconds is bullshit straight out of the Norman Dale philosophy the media and certain coaches have drum-beaten for decades: that aggressive offense is somehow morally wrong and it is more noble and admirable to fuck around with the ball, burn clock, and do everything you can to minimize the amount of actual basketball played during the game.

 

Whoa. Lets not go crazy now.

 

From everything I have ever heard, the opposite is true. NBA players are frequently cited - along with NHL players - as by far the easiest and most down-to-earth professional athletes to deal with.

 

Not to mention there are plenty of arrogant and egotistical players in college ball too -- to say nothing of the coaches, who are aggrandized way beyond proportion to their NBA counterparts.

 

There's good guys and egotistical assholes in every sport.

The idea that one sport has a monopoly on either of them is bullshit.

 

I honestly don't know about Indiana State. I just threw that out there because I figured there were a few fans left in French Lick.

I prefer basketball without a shot clock. That really speeds up the game. Any time a team can burn a minute or more without drawing a whistile to stop the clock and gets it over with ... that's my definition of a fast paced game.

 

Yeah I remember that one time when Chad OchoCinco and T.O. had a press conference to announce they were going to take their talents to South Beach. Say what you will about those guys... but their off the court antics are fun like Shaq's. However, there are plenty of NBA players that don't come off that way. Like LeBron... just to name one.

 

There will always be more variation in college ANYTHING than pro ANYTHING because the population pool is so much larger.

Styles, talent level, records of teams . . . all are much more varied in college.

That's not good or bad. It's just unavoidable.