Mark Bradley: College basketball stinks

Bragging rights with a 1-1 record are somewhat less ridiculous than bragging rights with a 1-3 record.

No. They tied a year or two earlier, I believe. The year UF won the title they lost a close one in Tallahassee and had about 14 things fall their way so that they could claim the title in the Sugar Bowl rematch.

They don't lose playoff games to teams they went 0-3 against.

No, it doesn't. You don't play anyone more than twice in the NFL, and how many times has a team gone 0-2 against a division opponent and then beaten them in the playoffs? Has it ever happened?

In the NBA East and West only play twice. And the champ will have won four games to prove its superiority. The worst it can do is go 4-5 against its Finals opponent. Not great, either. But still much better than 1-3.

 

I think that was a different year.

 

College football bowl games have become fairly predictable based on what coaches are leaving a program and what teams who expected to contend for bigger bowl.
Lesser teams that have something to prove always show up to play. Big name teams that had disappointing season do not.

Mentally I find myself feeling that college football season is over at end of November, usually content with having watched 3 months of great football and just hoping for a few good bowl games as icing on the cake but with little expectation.

 

Good memory.

Of course, that is one of the things that was sacrificed for the sake of having the beloved 1 vs. 2 matchup for the national title.

 

You are correct. My mistake.

 

This isn't a hammer on you, but I was curious and checked the stats of those 13 guys.

First, what are we using in 2013 to define "big-time"? Because "big-time" to me is Laettner and any number of Dukies, any number of Tar Heels, Chris Paul and Tim Duncan, Patrick Ewing (and any number of other Big Easters from back in those days), the Fab 5, Ed O'Bannon and any number of Pac-10 guys ... I think you catch my drift.

Now, the 13 you named might be solid players, some of them very good -- 2 or 3 POY candidates -- but only a few of them are even close to "big-time" if we're going by stats.

Only 6 of them are averaging more than 15 points a game, although Porter is at 14.7, so let's bump him up to that. Those 7 players range from 14.7 to 23.7 (McDermott).

Only 6 of them are shooting better than 50% or better from the field (I'll put Wright up there at 49.8) while the others are 42.0, 47.5, 41.2, 43.4, 44.8.

Someone whose line is 11.1 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.2 apg, 41.2% (Cook) is not "big-time" no matter how you spin him.

Stat-wise, McDermott is the best at 23.7 ppg, 7.2 rpg and 1.7 apg, while shooting 56.4% -- that's pretty close to big-time if we're going by stats of a player who also is a difference-maker.

I don't know. How many of these guys are we going to remember 10 years from now as "that college guy"?

 

Well, this is the problem with the bowl "system". Maybe the underlying question is "do we need 35 bowl games?"

Would you prefer 3-4 games in a playoff, like FCS and the other divisions have? And would teams that finish 7-5 and don't make the playoffs be eligible for the "Feel Good Bowl" or just pack away the gear after Thanksgiving and get on to hockey season?

 

What I like about college basketball is that it steps its game up right about at the time I become really interested.

But it is really hard to care about college basketball during the first two months of the season. I would say that 90 percent of the games played in December are horrifically bad. You get some decent games in November and then most of the top programs (there are a couple exceptions) don't play a single road game during the whole month and they basically just play a bunch of teams that they should kick the shit out of...

This is Duke's schedule for last month (all at home): Delaware, Temple, Cornell, Elon, Santa Clara...

Kentucky's was basically the same with the notable exception of a Dec. 29 game at Louisville.

 

Used to be any casual fan could name off about a dozen college players likely to be NBA first-round draft picks the following spring, because they had at least 2-3 seasons of college exposure and you'd actually seen them play.

Today, unless you are one of the junkies who watches dozens of games each week, you likely may draw a blank on more than half the draft field. I suspect pro teams are the same way. They have this pick and "gee, we have to take SOMEONE and there's no one all that great, so maybe we take so-and-so cause he's got potential for three years down the road."

 

I think you do an eight or 16-team playoff for college football and you can still have the bowl games for the teams that don't make it. For most of the bowl games they wouldn't mean any less than they do now...

 

It's fine for the bandwagon jumping casual fan who just wants something to watch on TV between the Super Bowl and MLB Opening Day in non-Olympic years.

But, as a sport, what does it say when fans regard 1/3 to 1/2 of your season as meaningless and don't feel an urge to tune in much prior to the playoffs? That's usually the charge leveled at the NBA or NHL. The people who run college basketball need to find ways to make a 4-month season mean something, not just 3 weeks in March.

Football, among all the team sports, is unique in that it has found a way to make fans care week-in, week-out from the first game until the end of the season. Other sports need to find that magic formula.

 

It's usually a pretty safe bet that almost half the lottery picks are guys who played one season in college or are coming over from another country.