Mark Bradley: College basketball stinks

And the talent level on those teams is a C- compared to what we used to see in college hoops.

 

True, I'm just saying people that say they don't watch because all the players are one-and-done and they don't know who anybody is are full of shit. If you've been paying attention to college hoops the past few years you have at least heard of most of the starters on Top 10 teams.

It might be interesting to see if the depth of quality basketball players increases again in a generation with more people hesitant to have their kids play football.

 

You are right. It's the names you hear on ESPN and Sportscenter that change.

VCU and UVA/ASU to a lesser degree are about the only teams I follow regularly.

 

I watched Long Beach State - UC Irvine on Saturday, and there wasn't a TV camera within miles.

Yet there was an "official's" time out at the first dead ball after 16, 12, 8 and four minutes each half.

 

Coaches "coaching" the game to within an inch of its life doesn't help. Tony Bennett, I am talking to you. And anyone who has coached Wisconsin the past decade.

 

I wrote an article in 1997 that the 3-pointer stinks. I hate it. At all levels. Most of all in playground scoring where buckets that normally count as one are instead worth two from behind the line.

It really struck me most when a post-up stud like Rasheed Wallace started jacking up threes. That's not basketball.

 

Yep. No one has tried to choke their coach to death or pulled out a gun in the locker room like Gilbert Arenas. Even Ron Artest --- or whatever he calls himself these days --- has made it through half a season without getting suspended.

The talent level in the NBA is fine. You've got a nice group of superstars who people can actually like, and behind them a healthy group of "very goods". Maybe the league has learned that if you can keep the thugs out of the headlines, chances are better that people will actually pay attention to the stuff that goes on on the court.

 

... Wisconsin has only had one coach in the last 10 years.

 

So what will help the game the most? Freshman not being eligible? Requiring players to stay at least three years? Eliminate the three-point shot? More scholarships? Fewer scholarships? Eliminate the shot clock? Something else?

 

I know I'm in the minority here, but when Bennett has some shooters to work with and one guy who can slash into the lane, I really enjoy watching his teams play. Same goes for Herb Sendek.

 

I agree with the point that there aren't as many great players today, but does over-saturating the TV schedule make it look even worse. I got a feeling if Duke vs. UNC, Michigan vs. Indiana, Kansas vs. Kansas State-type games represented most of what was on TV people would get more exited about them.

But when there's a Vandy vs. Mississippi State or a Washington State vs. Oregon State on TV every night of the week you look at it and think, "man, college basketball sucks."

 

Dead ringer Jake. Too many worthless games on TV. It's watered down the product. The expanse of cable, sattelite networks, etc., has grown so wide that it now hurts the sport more than it helps it.

Why go to a game when you can watch 12 to 20 of them every day on your TV?