College Basketball

[qazhby]

Luke Maye is the GOAT

[DRiccio21]

wow, that was a sick ending.

college basketball Is just so hard to watch being an NBA fan... the quality is just so bad. but that was a fun one.

I know nearly nothing about the intricacies of basketball other than the basics I learned playing in high school. What in particular makes it so bad?

the NBA game starts with the assumption an open player is going to hit an open shot almost on demand. At this point even power forwards need that skill or they become a liability. this leads to proper spacing of the court. When you have guys spread out then it makes it nearly impossible to go run and chase and trap and do all the things that happen in high school and college game because even the slightest misstep in an NBA game leads to ball rotation that will lead to the open player, who like i said, is almost never missing the open look. so there is a clear reward for good and a clear disadvantage for poor defense. without getting too philosophical, we are seekers of truth... i like to see good be rewarded and bad be punished, that's a clear feedback mechanism that makes the game beautiful to me. in the NBA we have a system very close to that.

in college players aren't nearly as skilled so there isn't the same assumption that an open shot is being hit. because of that you can get tons of different styles of play. pressing teams, zone, man, etc. in the nba you basically only have 1 style at this point. think of it like a long division problem with everything being crossed out on both sides and the only remainder is whoever the best player is. (which is why you almost always see the best team with the best player win, because at the end when everything breaks down that player has the slightest advantage to put the probability in your favor). defenses can get way out of position in college because even if an offense breaks them down and gets the wide open look, an average college player isn't going to be efficient enough to hit even the open look consistently. So a team that is playing beautiful basketball can do everything right and then not be rewarded. and vice versa, a team that is way over aggressive and out of position can get bailed out by a bad shooter.

because of that games often get decided by variables like 'who's hitting the most 3's that night' 'who can get into the bonus the quickest', etc which i don't find enjoyable to watch. Very few teams in college actually run good half court sets. getting into the penalty is the best offense some teams have. An average UConn team won the entire tournament with Shabazz by doing four things.... 1) slowing the game way down to limit the amount of possessions in the game (less possessions, more likelihood of an abnormal outcome) 2) hitting crazy 3's 3) getting into the bonus and hitting free throws 4) playing solid defense. South Carolina is basically getting by on the same thing. they are playing great d, they got Florida into the bonus with 15 minutes to go in 2nd half when they were losing by like 5 and ended up winning by 7 or whatever. They have 1 offensive superstar (Thornwell) who they can go to create a shot.

the variables like that make the college game seem 'exciting' because you see dudes running around like chickens with their heads cut off and i'm sure to many it makes the NBA boring to some cause guys are basically doing the same stuff over and over again. I just enjoy knowing the style in the NBA is like a science problem that's been tested over and over and over and they are at the point of near perfection (the good teams anyways... see Spurs vs Heat in NBA finals a few years back for the best example i can think of. that was pure orgasmic basketball by San Antonio... there was almost no way to beat that).

hopefully that makes sense

[Weasel]

Makes sense. So it boils down to skill, most importantly hitting an open shot (and everything else that you mentioned which evolves from that)

[DRiccio21]

yes which is why in the NBA you see the necessity now for every player on the court to be able to make the open 16-18 footer. that was never the case in the past. you could have a big bruising PF/C who just rebounded and that was it. the games progressing and evolving and because of that the need for spacing is so valuable that now every single player needs to be able to be a competent shooter.

It's why watching the career trajectory of someone like a Rondo is so fascinating. If you can't shoot really well you need to be exceptional at another trait to overcome that deficiency which he was (defense/passing/bball iq) but now that his defense is just good and not great he's only making it by on his bball iq/speed. you'll see some specialists who aren't high quality shooters, but its very hard to get by without being able to shoot cause it fucks it up for the other guys on the court. even the guys who aren't great shooters but exceptional at other things they try to teach them the corner 3 so they can just sit there and make 1 shot. Think about a guy like a Trevor Ariza or a Bruce Bowen.

[Uuaww]

what about that guy bismack biyombo or whatever his name is who can't score to save his life and never even gets the ball on offense.
http://deadspin.com/the-nba-players-no- ... 1459027648

[shel311]

in the nba you basically only have 1 style at this point. think of it like a long division problem with everything being crossed out on both sides and the only remainder is whoever the best player is. (which is why you almost always see the best team with the best player win, because at the end when everything breaks down that player has the slightest advantage to put the probability in your favor). defenses can get way out of position in college because even if an offense breaks them down and gets the wide open look, an average college player isn't going to be efficient enough to hit even the open look consistently. So a team that is playing beautiful basketball can do everything right and then not be rewarded. and vice versa, a team that is way over aggressive and out of position can get bailed out by a bad shooter.

LeBatard has been asking every NBA guy he has on lately and getting wildly different answers each time to this question:


If you took whoever the worst team in all of college basketball, put today's version of Lebron on that team and drop them into the beginning of the NCAA Tournament(assume they get a couple of weeks to practice) how would they do in the tourney?

They've had every answer from winning every game by 20+ to not making it to the Sweet 16. Because of everything Riccio posted, I wouldn't see them as a favorite to win the tourney.

[Weasel]

Id love to watch that hypothetical play out

[DRiccio21]

on the worst team... hmmmmm thats really interesting. some of those low level d 1 teams are really really bad

i literally don't even have a clue. i would guess they wouldn't win it all, but with the right coaching and enough slowed down pace i'm sure they could get Lebron to the line about 30 times per game.

i just don't know how you combat them doubling him all over the court, cause chances are the other 4 guys still couldn't beat the 3 best of a really good team on a 4-3 type drill.

edit: just reread it, with only a couple weeks of practice, i'm not as confident as i was. its hard to play with dudes who you've never seen before. i'm sure lebron would just send 2 shooters to the corners and tell the other 2 dudes to come set a ball screen (not like he'd actually need a ball screen). then i could also see lebron just posting up just about anyone rather easily. geez now i'm back to being confident. i just don't see how you keep him off the line 25-30 times per game.

[shel311]

Yea. I tend to think if you just pack the paint in enough and like you said, just foul Lebron or limit(as much as you can) the easy shots at the rim and force the other not good players to hit open jumpers and 3s, I don't think they can do that successfully 6 games in a row. And then I think they'd like struggle on D as well if they're playing a top 5 school filled with elite athletes as Lebron could only do so much by himself defensively compared to offense.

I think they'd lose somewhere in the final 2 weekends, at least.

[nick]

if theyre the worst team tho, they start the tourney as a 16 seed v a #1 and probably never beat them no?

[shel311]

if theyre the worst team tho, they start the tourney as a 16 seed v a #1 and probably never beat them no?

True. They never really discussed where you'd drop them in in terms of what seed though.

[nick]

i actually think the team wouldnt matter and Lebron is built like a fucking freak so no kid, or two kids in college could even contain him, and he'd just break them down over the course of 2 halves. I think they'd probably win it all.

[ajalves]

i actually think the team wouldnt matter and Lebron is built like a fucking freak so no kid, or two kids in college could even contain him, and he'd just break them down over the course of 2 halves. I think they'd probably win it all.

for one game, maybe 2 or 3....probably get tired after a bit

[nick]

the way MM is tho, wouldnt Lebron be fine? 2 games/weekend and then a week off, rinse repeat. He's playing more games and more mins/game in the NBA vs elite talent. Gotta feel he'd have a field day. Plus his vision he'd probably make his crappy teammates better...or break their fingers with passes whichever.

[shel311]

i actually think the team wouldnt matter and Lebron is built like a fucking freak so no kid, or two kids in college could even contain him, and he'd just break them down over the course of 2 halves. I think they'd probably win it all.

You may very well be right.

I just think teams would just pack 4 guys in the paint, and limit(general speaking of course) just how much he could dominate. At some point, his teammates would have to hit shots. Granted they're wide open shots and playing with Lebron probably greatly increases their shooting numbers. But I think there are 300+ NCAA teams, and we're talking about the worst collection of talent out of those 300 teams. I don't think you can trust those guys to hit enough shots to win since Lebron won't score 70 each game.

And same thing defensively, Lebron can only do so much and I have to think they'd struggle with a team full of elite offensive players.

[Uuaww]

i actually think the team wouldnt matter and Lebron is built like a fucking freak so no kid, or two kids in college could even contain him, and he'd just break them down over the course of 2 halves. I think they'd probably win it all.

You may very well be right.

I just think teams would just pack 4 guys in the paint, and limit(general speaking of course) just how much he could dominate. At some point, his teammates would have to hit shots. Granted they're wide open shots and playing with Lebron probably greatly increases their shooting numbers. But I think there are 300+ NCAA teams, and we're talking about the worst collection of talent out of those 300 teams. I don't think you can trust those guys to hit enough shots to win since Lebron won't score 70 each game.

And same thing defensively, Lebron can only do so much and I have to think they'd struggle with a team full of elite offensive players.

yeah, way back espn did an NCAA tourney where what would happen if LeBron played 4 years. They put him on Akron... who is probably an average MAC team in a poor but not awful conference. If he is on Akron, he probably wins the tourney with the limited talent they have. But put him on the worst team in D1... probably not.

[nick]

351 Alabama A&M

based off Kenpom.

[shel311]

351 Alabama A&M

based off Kenpom.

40% from the field as a team, 27% from 3.

[nick]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BSKIV1uBgY4 ... -by=daquan

[jsence2]

If I were a coach, I'd basically play the "Lebron can get his, nobody else is scoring" tactic. If Lebron can score 60-70 by himself every game, more power to him. But he's gotta stay out of foul trouble, and better teams would beat them easily, I think.