March Madness: The Debate Returns

My pal, Jimmy, doesn't watch basketball. He saw me eating lunch and zoned out on some college bball game and assumed I was really into it. I had been watch for roughly two minutes, and I soon explained that I'd met my college bball quota for the year.

Jimbo was dumbfounded, "I thought you loved basketball?". I agreed, because I certainly do, but not at the collegiate level, mostly the pros. So, like the novice he is, he asks "what makes them different?" This is where things got interesting.

I diagrammed how textbook the college game is, citing their use of zone defenses. Jimmy wasn't familiar, so I dug deeper. The score was 9-3. I told Jimmy how the zone (and rules) used in college bball force teams to toss the ball around the three-point line, avoid the paint, and chuck threes. The score was 9-3, meaning one team hit 3 long range shots, while the other made 1. Ensuing possession: Team A passes the ball around the perimeter for 30 seconds before sinking a trey ball just prior to the shot clock expiring. The score is 9-6! All behind the arc. Within one possession Jimmy knew everything about college basketball he needed to know. "Wow, that's boring" he said, as we looked away from the TV and finished eating.

Maybe I'm spoiled since I've watched more professional hoops than anything else. Although, I still can't understand why March makes people feel that college hoops can even compare to the pros (NBA, Euroleague, etc.).

Some claim that the youngsters play only for love and not money and blah blah blah. I can't measure any players love for the game, but I can admit that some pros are definitely there for a check. But let's not pretend college athletes play entirely for free. Most are on scholarships and probably value the education that may lead to a real career later. They are demi-gods on their respective campuses, and are enjoying arguably the best time of their lives. Tack on the stipend that many receive and these guys are sticking around for more than "love of the game".

I think the primary thing that draws viewers to March Madness is the random nature of the tournament and the energy of the crowds. I don't place great value on the champion, because 65 teams make the tourney. One loss, sends you home. Science class taught me that experiments should be run multiple times (maybe 4 out of 7?) to ensure accuracy. If a mid-major ever wins the tourney, it'd be a great story, but somewhat unsatisfying. The truth is there are just too many teams to draw any real conclusions from the large tourney, it's a glorified exhibition.

Defense is the chant of basketball purists, although that argument also falls short. The NBA is comprised of the best offensive players in the world, while 90% of the NCAA will be working regular jobs in the next few years. Who do you think is easier to guard? The effort is there, but stopping guys like Kobe, LeBron, and Durant, is just plain difficult. The disparity in talent is just too great.

Can we deny that the college product loses much of its luster every year? Many great players played one year and fled to the NBA, but quite a few flea after two. Little consistency, or continuity, and less chances for the coaches (the real stars of collegiate sports) to teach the game. Universities feel cheated, and they should. Even the best players view the NCAA as child's play, a simple warmup for their true hoop dreams.

Enjoy the tourney, as there are sure to be some exciting moments. Just know that the real madness kicks off in April, when the best basketball players in the world play play for legacy.