2011-12 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread

[Kramerica Industries]

Yeah, burn in hell Kentucky.

Another year of a fairly boring Title game, aside from Kansas' late run. Oh well.

[pmoehrin]

Average title game.

I thought it was split 50/50 between Kentucky winning and Kansas losing. Seen both teams look better that what they showed tonight on more then one occasion. Kentucky got out to that great start, but Kansas did a nice job of taking Davis out of the game at least on the offense side of things and it did force Kentucky to change things up.

Kansas just took way too long to get going. No idea why they tried to push the pace coming out of the gate. Maybe they were trying to send a message, but all that did was play right into Kentucky's strength. That's probably the biggest area of criticism I'd have to offer for either side. The other thing that struck me with Kansas was that they did not seem to be very aggressive going after loose or contested balls. I'd would say it cost them at least two possessions, maybe even the game.

Kentucky didn't play great, but they didn't play bad either. They were just good enough to beat Kansas somewhat decisively and that's all you need to do to win games. Davis looked fantastic on defense and the offense I thought did a very nice job of stepping up for his lack of contribution on that side of the floor. My only knock against them was that they did seem to get a little lazy in the second half at times, which has happened to them before, but in the end it didn't matter. They did wake up long enough at times to hit some key shots to keep the pressure on Kansas all game long.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Tip of the hat to Kentucky, I'm not too fond of them but there is no denying they were by far and away the best team this season. Imagine if all these kids stayed until they were seniors! They might very well have had a UCLA of the 60's/70's type dynasty.

[Drew22]

One Shining Moment is always awesome. Good job CBS.

[dfwabel]

An entire tournament without a single buzzer beater. Has that even happened in the Modern Era, lets say circa 1990?

Well it was replaced with two #15 seeds beating #2 seeds.

One Shining Moment is always awesome. Good job CBS.

Bad version as the Luther version is the third best version of the song they have to use.

The original version by songwriter David Barrett is the best, followed by Teddy Pendergrass.

Thankfully, Nantz did not have a really bad pun to use as his game-ending statement. (Then again he will now have more written out for Sunday's final round at Augusta)

[pmoehrin]

Tip of the hat to Kentucky, I'm not too fond of them but there is no denying they were by far and away the best team this season. Imagine if all these kids stayed until they were seniors! They might very well have had a UCLA of the 60's/70's type dynasty.

Perhaps but this is downside of college basketball today. They aren't any truly great teams anymore. The last one I thought was the 2001 Duke team. Even going back to the Florida teams that won back to back titles, I don't think they would match up well against very many teams that had won it before them.

Teams just don't have essentially what could be NBA all-stars in their starting lineups. Anthony Davis is the first guy in awhile where you might be able to make that argument and even that I would say is very debatable. Him, Blake Griffin, Carmelo Anthony, Tim Duncan, Grant Hill and Shaq are the only guys in the last 20 years or so where I would say a good case could be made they would be NBA all-stars if they were in the NBA instead of college and even those guys don't compare to where Michael Jordan was the year he left UNC or where was Kareem when he left UCLA. That level of talent just doesn't exist anymore in the college game and hasn't for quite some time.

I think its a change for the better. I rather have the game's elite at the NBA level rather then the college and I don't buy into the theory that college makes you better prepared for the NBA. I think it all depends on the player. May have made a difference in some guys like Andrew Bynum, but for guys like LeBron and Dwight Howard, I don't think their careers would be much different had they gone to college for a year or two. I think its more fans upset about the college game not being as good as it used to be which I could understand. There is a certain element of the college atmosphere that just doesn't translate to NBA arenas which I find to usually be a very sterile environment. The college game is also far more team oriented in how its presented then the NBA which is all about individual players. I don't like it and I know people who work in the NBA don't view the game as how the league markets it but that's just the way it is. Its almost to the point where the average fan rather see a three on three street game involving NBA talent then an actual NBA game because the NBA pounds it in people's heads how important individual talent is. And I feel that is entirely on the league if people are thinking like that.

If you can look past all of that though and you don't have a real strong loyalty to the college game as a whole or a major program then I would say you are in favor of players coming out early. But if you love the college game and think the NBA is where team basketball goes to die, then you probably would want it be mandatory three years going to college and no player should be allowed to enter the draft early.

At the same time though I think its kind of a blessing in disguise that the college basketball game is not played at a higher level. I look at college football and I think alot of what it once stood for has been completely ruined by the increase of money. In alot of ways I think college basketball may have been spared the same fate because of that. Duke is not planning to close down Cameroon Indoor to open up a new 20,000 seat arena, its not a death sentence for a program if they aren't in a major conference and I don't see the "if your not cheating your not trying" recruiting mentality in college basketball that I think exists at alot of college football programs, or at least not as widespread.

[Kramerica Industries]

I think one of the problems today stems from the NBA's entirely inane and unconstitutional age limit that in effect forces these guys to go to college (Brandon Jennings being the exception). I prefer the best talent be at the top level as well and as such preferred it when high schoolers could enter the NBA directly. If one decides to go to college, I do like the idea of them having to spend two-three years in college before being draft-eligible again - basically, like MLB draft rules in relation to amateur baseball. The age limit was a hasty decision that really doesn't even have legitimate legal standing, and has no business being in place. That said, it's not going away, so the result is the one-and-done system that Calipari is the master of.

[CS85]

Looks like Lexington's celebrating this one 'nucks style.

Shameless, sorry. Does every college town celebrate with a drunken fire riot after a title?

[pmoehrin]

The way I would handle the draft would be what I would call the 5-10-20 rule.

Mock draft would be held in mid-March. Any High School Senior that was projected to go in the top 5 would be eligible to declare for the NBA draft. Any Freshman in the top 10 would as well and any Sophomore in the top 20. Juniors and Seniors would have no limits.

I think teams were already pretty much done using high picks on non NBA ready projects out of high school before the age limit came. It either didn't work as was the case with Kwame Brown and Darius Miles or by the time they did finally develop into NBA players they were free agent eligible and financial gain you would have gotten from them overplaying for what their rookie contract was worth was never realized as was the case with Tyson Chandler. Guys like Howard, LeBron, Garnett. Those guys were all NBA ready from day one. I wouldn't see the point in holding them back.

I wouldn't have an issue if the NBA just went back to no age limits. I don't think the league has the right to dictate people's life choices. I don't think most fans and NBA executives realize just how hard alot of the backgrounds of these college players really are and if they did I'm not sure this would even be a debate. I don't think there would be any age limit.

But I do think the game would be beneficial by having a strong college game. Your superstars are always going to be superstars no matter what you do, but your second and third line guys I think it does wonders in terms of their growth and development.

I would prefer if it was just the D-League doing this but it just doesn't have the financial stability or the appeal that the college game does.

[dfwabel]

I think one of the problems today stems from the NBA's entirely inane and unconstitutional age limit that in effect forces these guys to go to college (Brandon Jennings being the exception). I prefer the best talent be at the top level as well and as such preferred it when high schoolers could enter the NBA directly. If one decides to go to college, I do like the idea of them having to spend two-three years in college before being draft-eligible again - basically, like MLB draft rules in relation to amateur baseball. The age limit was a hasty decision that really doesn't even have legitimate legal standing, and has no business being in place. That said, it's not going away, so the result is the one-and-done system that Calipari is the master of.

It is not unconstitutional as SCOTUS has not deemed it such. While Jennings went to Italy and Jeremy Tyler got a GED and went to Israel, there is nothing stopping a HS graduate (or someone with a GED) to bypass the NCAA/NAIA ranks to play in the NBDL or another minor league.

Also, scholarships can still now be for one year, thus the "one and done" system was inherently apart of the NCAA false system of amateurism.

[pmoehrin]

It is not unconstitutional as SCOTUS has not deemed it such.

That's basically because the Supreme Court refused to hear Maurice Clarett's case. That would have cleared the whole mess up but I think its been made very clear its not an issue who's legality they want to discuss, although I would highly doubt the reasoning is because its not a worthwhile case, I just don't think they want to make that influential of a ruling in either direction like that.

That's not the same thing as saying its legal and I would still say its very much open to a challenge. How far it would get is another story altogether but it could conceivably be overturned at some point down the road either through a court case or legislation. And also remember the first ruling for Clarett came down in his favor.

[dfwabel]

It is not unconstitutional as SCOTUS has not deemed it such.

That's basically because the Supreme Court refused to hear Maurice Clarett's case. That would have cleared the whole mess up but I think its been made very clear its not an issue who's legality they want to discuss, although I would highly doubt the reasoning is because its not a worthwhile case, I just don't think they want to make that influential of a ruling in either direction like that.

That's not the same thing as saying its legal and I would still say its very much open to a challenge. How far it would get is another story altogether but it could conceivably be overturned at some point down the road either through a court case or legislation. And also remember the first ruling for Clarett came down in his favor.

Then why doesn't Gloria Allred or some other attorney who lives on publicity take it on? Heckfire, agents do not take it on. If Olson and Boies have not taken it on, they don't see a winner in Federal courts. So who will?

[pmoehrin]

It is not unconstitutional as SCOTUS has not deemed it such.

That's basically because the Supreme Court refused to hear Maurice Clarett's case. That would have cleared the whole mess up but I think its been made very clear its not an issue who's legality they want to discuss, although I would highly doubt the reasoning is because its not a worthwhile case, I just don't think they want to make that influential of a ruling in either direction like that.

That's not the same thing as saying its legal and I would still say its very much open to a challenge. How far it would get is another story altogether but it could conceivably be overturned at some point down the road either through a court case or legislation. And also remember the first ruling for Clarett came down in his favor.

Then why doesn't Gloria Allred or some other attorney who lives on publicity take it on? Heckfire, agents do not take it on. If Olson and Boies have not taken it on, they don't see a winner in Federal courts. So who will?

Two reasons I would say. One just because its open to a challenge doesn't mean you will win either. Very likely a judge will look for any excuse he or she can find to throw out the case. So just to get somebody to hear it would be an accomplishment in of itself.

And two, if you challenge this, your college career is over on the spot. So you need to be willing to sit out potentially a year if not more, which may or may not end a player's career before they even get started. That's alot to potentially give up. And the player or players that do challenge this aren't going to see any benefit. If they win the suit by the time it comes down in their favor they could have gone to school for the year or so and be eligible for the NBA or NFL draft anyway. Any player that does this would be taking a huge chance for little to no reward. The only Clarett sued was because his college career was already effectively over. He did not stand to lose that much.

As far as the agents go, it may be one of the reasons why the NCAA has taken such a hard stance against college players having anything to do with them. Somebody like a Drew Rosenhaus I would say could very quickly file a class action lawsuit against the NCAA with players that would really hinder the quality of play in college football if the NCAA decided to suspended all of them.

[Cujo]

An entire tournament without a single buzzer beater. Has that even happened in the Modern Era, lets say circa 1990?

The pair of "15s over a 2" made up for the lack of buzzer-beaters, IMO.

[NEW.ERA]

An entire tournament without a single buzzer beater. Has that even happened in the Modern Era, lets say circa 1990?

The pair of "15s over a 2" made up for the lack of buzzer-beaters, IMO.

Yeah, I've heard that. Which is totally fine, just it'd be nice if we saw one at least.

Anyways, a friend found this, and I died of laughter.

[RyanB06]

Hate to interrupt the frivolity with actual news, but:

Florida International to Isiah Thomas: You're fired

[pmoehrin]

Hate to interrupt the frivolity with actual news, but:

Florida International to Isiah Thomas: You're fired

No idea why FIU even hired him in the first place. One of those moves that never made any sense to me. His heart clearly was never in it probably because he was too busy being the defacto GM of the Knicks. Maybe they were trying to make a splash but if you anything know about Isiah Thomas you would know that's the last guy to do it with. I would say he will destroy your program if you bring him in, but FIU is about as far down on the totem pole in college basketball as you can get, so there really was nothing there to begin with anyway.

Only question now is how soon is he coming back to the Knicks and what role will he assume? This is a team that's on record as trying to hire him while he was still coaching at FIU and was blocked by the league. Why wouldn't they now that nothing is stopping them?

[pmoehrin]

Was wondering how Baylor was getting all of these top recruits.

http://www.nytimes.c...basketball.html

Now it makes sense. Just surprised the women's program was indicted as well.

[rams80]

Was wondering how Baylor was getting all of these top recruits.

http://www.nytimes.c...basketball.html

Now it makes sense. Just surprised the women's program was indicted as well.

They commit to get coaches to STFU?

[crashcarson15]

I bet God loves the fact that Baylor cheated in His name.