The State of College Basketball: Trending Up or Down?

It's the most dreadful time of year for a college basketball fan. March Madness has come to a close, the game is absent from the sports world, and along with that, underclassmen begin to declare for the NBA Draft later in June. Spurning one to three more years of college for the chance at fame and millions of dollars seems like a no-brainer, and the amount of young men who choose that path illustrate that thinking. But while players sign agents, fans are left with the changing landscape of college basketball.

Is the game improving? Quite simply, it is not. A case could be made that the game has been stagnant, but it's difficult to argue that college basketball has improved in the last decade. Choppy gameplay due to fouls, conference realignment, coaching changes and early draft entries have affected the game negatively and continue to do so.

The national championship game between North Carolina and Gonzaga was difficult to watch despite the close score. 44 fouls meant constant stoppages, which led to poor shooting and no rhythm in gameplay. The final 20 minutes seemed to take a lifetime as it became a free throw contest. 52 free throws were shot before the end of the night and both teams were in the bonus with 13 minutes left. In the second half alone there were 27 fouls and it sent nearly every big man for both teams to the bench in foul trouble.

Unfortunately, the national championship was not an anomaly. UCLA, a run-and-gun team that featured quality shooters, versatile big men and Lonzo Ball to orchestrate it all, was a breath of fresh air during a season that would frequently feature games in the 60's.

Four different conferences were represented at the Final Four this season (ACC, SEC, WCC, PAC-12), but not one of those conferences has had the same members for longer than five seasons. Football and the pursuit of the almighty dollar for television networks has led many conference to shift and change over the years. This is nothing new, but it's reached a new level in this decade. It's taken away fantastic basketball rivalries like Kansas-Missouri, Syracuse-Georgetown and Duke-Maryland.

Instead, fans are treated to games like Missouri-Auburn, Syracuse-Clemson and Maryland-Nebraska. Sure, there are still plenty of great rivalries, but a Missouri fan has lost the two best games of the year. A Maryland fan is watching their team in games with no history or passion. A Syracuse fan is pleased to see games against Duke and Carolina, but it's not Georgetown or UConn. The realignment is not what is best for the game despite being what's best for the bottom line.

Speaking of the bottom line, did you watch ESPN's 30 for 30 One and Not Done on John Calipari? His players have made plenty of money in the NBA and very few of them stuck around for more than a year or two in college. The one-and-done topic has been beaten to death, but despite all the talk, there has been no action to fix what plagues the game and the NBA.

For the college game, it's an issue for the fans and that's it. The teams and coaches must continually replenish their rosters, but that has not been difficult for the game's best. For the fans though, they are watching a revolving door. Players come and go and there is hardly any connection between the player and the university. Kyrie Irving can claim to be a Dukie, but 10 games doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Consider all the freshmen who have gone through Kansas in recent years: Xavier Henry, Andrew Wiggins, Josh Selby and Josh Jackson. They have all done well in Lawrence, but departed after a year. Perhaps only a Jayhawk fan can truly answer the question, but is that fun? Those players have brought plenty of wins and that's fun, but is it truly fun to root for the program when the best player is someone new every season? There's rarely a long-term connection with stars anymore like J.J. Redick or Adam Morrison. That's why teams like this year's North Carolina and Gonzaga squads should be treasured.

And it's not just players who leave early. Coaches are guilty as well. No one could ever fault someone for moving up in the ranks and bettering their career, but coaches don't last long at one place anymore. Jim Boeheim vs. John Thompson or Gene Keady vs. Bob Knight? Those kind of coaching rivalries are hard to come by now. Is that a death sentence for the game? Of course not. The game can go on without those, but it doesn't make for a better product.

Make no mistake though, college basketball is a great game. March Madness continues to thrill the masses year after year, but that can't be the sole barometer for the state of the game. There are plenty of factors that contribute to college basketball as a whole and as the book closes on another season, it's safe to say there is work to be done.

Wisconsin's Loss is a Loss for College Basketball

This wasn't how the season was supposed to end. Not in the mind of Wisconsin's fans and players. The confetti being shot out of the scoreboard in Lucas Oil Stadium on April 6th was supposed to be red and white and nothing else. Bo Ryan was supposed to be the coach standing on the platform with Jim Nantz and one of Wisconsin's veteran leaders was supposed to be named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player.

But you know the saying: All good things must come to an end.

The only problem was that this wasn't just a good thing. It was a great thing. It was great for the University of Wisconsin and it was great for the game of college basketball. This team was the perfect example of what college basketball should be, yet no longer is. They were human and they were real. They were here to play for each other and play for their school. It was never about paying their dues and bolting for the NBA Draft because this team took pride in their potential and knew they could have been something special. They SHOULD have been something special.

To anyone that pays attention to basketball, collegiate or professional, it is understood that the "one and done" mindset dominates the young talent around the nation and, in some cases, forms certain programs to be nothing but a minor league system for the NBA rather than a place to raise student-athletes. You've seen Kentucky turn out lottery draft pick after lottery draft pick and any highly-touted recruit with even a glimmer of hope of being drafted falls into the trap of leaving school early. That's why this Wisconsin team was special. They had players that were going to be drafted last year that came back because winning a National Championship in college was more important to them than chasing a seven-digit paycheck.

Kaminsky and Dekker led the Badgers to back-to-back Final Fours

Those specific players are Sam Dekker and Frank Kaminsky. Two players who went from good to great in this season and led the Badgers the entire way. They showed us that there are still players and teams that take college basketball to heart and are proud of who they play for. This is not to say that the Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parkers of the world didn't appreciate the schools they played for. But it's no secret that, before those two highly-touted recruits even stepped on campus, that they were one-and-dones. So why get attached? Why begin cheering for kids that aren't going to leave a college legacy? Why even trick yourself into thinking that the great recruits will hang around for even a second year of school?

That's why this Wisconsin team was impossible to root against. They showed us the human side of college basketball and proved that, despite the fact that college basketball is becoming more of a business, that they're still kids who are playing the game they love. They joked in interviews, they goofed around in the public eye, all while managing to put together one of the best seasons in their school's history. They epitomized what college basketball should be about: a team that was one of the best in the nation last year and wanted more. They didn't settle for a Final Four finish. They weren't okay with leaving Dallas with a loss. Kaminsky and Dekker could have left for the Draft and didn't. They came back with the goal of hoisting that trophy in mind and nothing less than that would suffice.

We need more teams and players like Wisconsin's. We need more Frank Kaminskys and Sam Dekkers because they give us hope that not all college basketball players only use college basketball as a stepping stone to the NBA. Sure, we've enjoyed watching teams like Arizona and even Kentucky, who shockingly brought back the core of their 2014 Final Four team. Those teams had veterans and they had experience. Kentucky even made a second consecutive Final Four run of their own. But the dynamic of those teams was not like Wisconsin's. Wisconsin didn't play any freshmen. Wisconsin was led by players that were there for Wisconsin, not their own draft stock. That's why last night's championship loss hurts a little more than normal.

Okafor and Jones have most likely played their final game for Duke

And while Wisconsin's freshmen were on the sidelines, Duke's freshmen were rising above the rest. Tyus Jones, Justise Winslow, Grayson Allen, and Jahlil Okafor scored 60 of their 68 points and showed just how talented and capable they are. It was fun to watch, right? I witnessed that game, and as I sat there in Lucas Oil Stadium and thought about how great Duke could be next year it occurred to me that the Blue Devils championship team is gone. Long gone. Jones, Winslow, and Okafor are likely to leave for the Draft while another wave of freshman talent comes in. Just like that, a championship team is torn apart as quickly as it came together. That's what's so frustrating.

I'm not a fan of Duke, never have been. But think of how much fun college basketball would be if those freshman stayed and tried to repeat? Look how anxious college basketball fans got whenever Kentucky took the floor. The Wildcats were already the villains of the college basketball world but what they did this year gave the game excitement and an edge that had been absent as of late. I dislike Kentucky as well, but watching those kids who came back evolve and lead was, and I'm ashamed to admit this, fun to experience. It goes to show how competitive the game COULD be if players would stay.

That's why Wisconsin was more than just a team trying to repeat. In a way that they may not have intended, they were a team that was trying to revive a lost concept in the world of college basketball. Had they won, they would have left a legacy that had not been achieved since the '06 and '07 Florida teams. The results are different, but the concept remains the same: both programs brought back players who wanted to get back to where they ended the previous season and, in Wisconsin's case, achieve more.

So while I watched Frank Kaminsky crouch on the sideline as the Duke players wrestled each other to the ground, I realized that Wisconsin's loss was a loss for college basketball fans. The story-book ending was there. They channeled their inner Benny Rodriguez and pickled the Beast in the semi-finals only to fall short to a team that will have an entirely new look next season. They came back to get to that moment, to seize that opportunity, and yet it wasn't meant to be. But even in the loss, Wisconsin should still be appreciated. Frank Kaminsky and Sam Dekker should be thanked for restoring a little faith and humanity to the college game. They gave us a glimpse of college basketball being treated the right way. Wisconsin won't be anywhere in the history books and soon they will be overlooked. But for now we need to recognize just how special this team was to a game we so deeply love.

Bracket Breakdown: The South

The South region is ruled by big men, which makes this particular quadrant of the bracket all the more exciting. The physicality and strength that the top teams in this region provide are sure to provide us with numerous memorable match-ups. Headlining this region is the top-seeded Blue Devils of Duke University and their star freshman center Jahlil Okafor. If Duke hopes to punch a ticket to Indy, Okafor and the rest of Duke's front line will have their hands full with players such as Joshua Smith (Georgetown), Winston Shepard  (San Diego State), and Przemek Karnowski (Gonzaga). But don't be fooled, the back courts in this region aren't pushovers. Yet with such talented forwards and centers, which front court will lead their team into the month of April? Zach was too busy working the Illinois State-Green Bay NIT game. So I'll take this one solo.

General Overview: Duke is number one and Gonzaga is number two. One is looking for redemption after an embarrassing opening round exit to a 14 seed, and the other is looking to advance to their first Final Four in school history. While both teams are clearly talented enough to make it to Indy, a handful of lower seeded teams will make sure that the road to the Final Four is a tough one.

We've said it before, we'll say it again: March is not about who's better on paper, it's about who's on a hot streak at the right time. Two teams in particular are rolling at a time when momentum can sometimes mean more than talent. Iowa State and SMU, both conference tournament winners in their own right, have their sights set on Final Four appearances and are equipped to make those dreams come true. Iowa State has won eight of their last ten games (including five wins over ranked opponents) and have won five straight. Southern Methodist, on the other hand, have won seventeen of their last twenty and have won four straight. Fred Hoiberg and Larry Brown will have their teams ready to roll and, while they'll take it one game at a time, will surely be focused on catching flights to Indianapolis in three weeks.

Upset Alert: You remember them as the Cinderella of 2008. You remember them as the Stephen Curry-led Davidson Wildcats. Yet this year's Davidson squad is not to be disregarded as Curry's team was pre-March Madness. Winners of ten of their last eleven, Davidson has not just beaten their opponents, they've disposed of them. Their average margin of victory is just under fifteen points per game in those ten wins and with the seventh-seeded Iowa Hawkeyes in mind, the Wildcats look to build off of their recent success. What makes this team so special is that four players average double digits in the points category, with Taylor Kalinoski (17 ppg) and Jack Gibbs (16.3 ppg) leading the charge. Even more dangerous than their balanced attack is the depth that Bob McKillop's team has. Ten players average over ten minutes a game which means plenty of fresh legs for the Hawkeyes to keep track of.

Add all of this in with the facts that Davidson's ball movement results in 17 assists per game (good for 3rd in the nation) and their ability to shoot 47% per game enables them to put up 80 points per game (good for 6th in the nation), and you have a force to be reckoned with. Fran McCaffery's team will need to be up to the challenge or an opening round exit is sure to be in store for the Hawkeyes squad that did not finish in the top 50 in points, assists, rebounds, or field goal percentage per game (Davidson was top 35 in three of the four categories). Iowa will not be an easy victory, but if there were an upset in this region that I would pay close attention to, it would definitely be this seven/ten match-up.

Player to Watch: SMU was highlighted earlier in this post, and a big part of their potential for success in this tournament is because of the stellar play of their junior point guard Nic Moore. The Mustangs offense runs through him as he averages 14 points and 5 assists per game. Aside from the numbers he puts up, Moore's mere presence on the floor is also critical for Larry Brown's team. He's the only member of the team that averages more than 28 minutes per game and is on the court for 34 and a half minutes, on average. The question remains if Moore can bounce back from a sub par performance in the American Conference championship (11 points on 3-14 shooting, 1-7 from three point range), but if he returns to form in their opening match-up against the UCLA Bruins, SMU might ride the coattails of Nic Moore deep into the tournament.

Bracket Breakdown: Midwest

Aaron Harrison and Russ Smith

The Midwest bracket features the undefeated Wichita State Shockers, but the selection committee did the Shockers no favors by grouping them with Kentucky, Louisville, Duke and Michigan. In the toughest region of the four, it's hard to say who will advance to Dallas. While Wichita State is undefeated and went to the Final Four last season, it's hard to see them moving through a region loaded with potential national champions. Let's break it down.

Midwest Region winner: Louisville won the Midwest last season and they will win it again this year. Since February they are a 12-1 with a loss at Memphis being the only blemish. The Cards are hot right now and steamrolled their way through the American Conference tournament. However, the committee didn't think too highly of the AAC (sorry SMU) and put Louisville back at a four seed. It's an interesting decision, but it shouldn't slow Rick Pitino's squad at all.

The second round matchup with Manhattan should be a breeze and, while their third round game could be tough, they should move to Indy with little trouble. From there, they will be tested with two elite opponents. Whether that be Wichita State or Kentucky in the Sweet 16, it's not a cakewalk by any means. My head says pick Wichita State to meet them there, but a Kentucky-Louisville matchup in the NCAA Tournament would be phenomenal. In the Elite 8 they could face Duke, which would be a rematch of last year's Midwest Elite 8 game, or they could face Michigan. Despite the difficult road, the Cardinals score the basketball too well (82 ppg) and have too many weapons to be denied a third straight Final Four.


Jabari Parker and Nik Stauskas

Upset Pick: Tennessee over UMass
It beats me why UMass received such a high seed considering that they were the sixth seed in the Atlantic-10 tournament. Now, they are a six seed in the NCAA Tournament. That's major respect to the conference from the selection committee, but don't expect them to win a game. Tennessee, assuming they beat a slumping Iowa team, has played well of late. The Vols had won five of eight before giving Florida all they could handle in a 56-49 defeat in the SEC tournament semis.

You want to be playing your best ball heading into the tournament and it appears Tennessee is doing just that. UMass is not, having alternated wins and losses in their last six games. For that reason, expect the 11-seeded Volunteers to advance to the third round.

Player to Watch: Jabari Parker, Duke
Parker is the best freshman in the game and he leads the Blue Devils into March thinking they can make a run at the title. He posted stats of 19.2 points and 8.8 rebounds per game this season, but has seen his game-by-game field goal percentage fluctuate drastically over the past few weeks. Still, his skill set is impressive for someone his size and age, and the tournament may be the last time we get to watch him in a Duke uniform. Thankfully, the Blue Devils should at least make it to the Sweet 16, which will give us at least three more chances to watch him. He's a special talent and a player you don't want to miss.

Potentially Intriguing Matchup: Kentucky vs. Louisville (Sweet 16)
I am not actually picking this matchup to happen, but it would be some great television if it did. There's five or six different potential matchups you could talk about here, but we will settle with this one because it's a rivalry. Don't forget that Kentucky beat Louisville earlier in the season 73-66. The Cats have had their well-chronicled struggles this season, but in that prior meeting they had four freshmen score in double figures. For Louisville, they received a 7-20 shooting night from Russ Smith and a 3-11 performance from Luke Hancock. Should that happen again, Kentucky will move to the Elite 8. A lot has to happen for us to see this game, but it would be a dandy at Lucas Oil Stadium should it happen.

Bottom Line: There are plenty of great teams in the Midwest Region, but Louisville has the most postseason experience of them all and will advance to Dallas.

My Letter to the NBA

To whom it may concern,

As an avid basketball fan and frequent viewer of the game, it has become clear to me that maybe the "points of emphasis" that the officials go over each year are not the only rules that need changing or require a closer look. The rule that is in place now in terms of players entering the draft is that they must be 19 years of age before or during the calender year in which the draft is held. I would like to respectfully disagree with the implementation of this rule due to the effect it has on both the college and professional game, as well as the young men that venture into the draft prematurely.

Carter-Williams is among the few good rookies in the NBA

By now every basketball fan knows of the strength and potential of this year's freshman class. Names like Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle, and Aaron Gordon have filled headlines and news segments on various TV networks and their talent has many people believing that they will enjoy immediate success in the NBA. However, those four young men will only be four of the sixty draft picks in June (should they leave school early) that appear to be NBA ready. Are there other freshman that are capable? Possibly. But the fact of the matter is that the professional level is not easy to stand out in by any means.

Take a look at last year's draft class. The only players we have heard about all year are Victor Oladipo from Indiana and Michael Carter-Williams from Syracuse. Names like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, and Anthony Bennett have, by no means, been standouts in the NBA like they were in college. Is it the kid's fault for leaving early? Most likely. But take into consideration the fact that the media does nothing but build these kids up and, in some ways, give them a little false hope. While a kid like Zeller was a good college player, it was clear he still had some toughness to gain and his strength was not at the necessary level to compete with the dominant big men the NBA has to offer. Right now Zeller is averaging a measly five points and four rebounds while shooting 37% from the floor. Not exactly the numbers we're used to seeing him put up. Why? Because he's not NBA-ready.

But ESPN and other members of the media don't care about that. They only care about what they can gossip about and what kind of drama they can build up through their "draft predictions" and allowing these kids (yes, kids) to enter the draft as teenagers does not help their cause. Look at college football. College football has a rule in place that the players may not leave school until after their junior year. Because of that, we have had the privilege to watch players like Johnny Manziel and Tim Tebow come back and play again following Heisman-winning seasons. We will also have the chance to see this year's Heisman winner, Jameis Winston, come back for his sophomore campaign. This rule not only benefits the players in terms of experience, but it makes games and conferences so much more competitive and so much more relevant in terms of a long-term approach.

The newest UK Freshman have not lived up to expectations

Shifting back to basketball, look at how your draft eligibility rule affects the University of Kentucky. Head coach John Calipari has established a false bravado that he can win championships with nothing but freshman. Each year Kentucky brings in a top five recruiting class and each year the freshman are believed to be "the best freshman class ever". It's annoying and inaccurate and to those who are wanting to say that Calipari CAN win with all freshman and are looking at the 2012 national championship team as proof, you're dead wrong. That starting five consisted of only two freshman in Marquis Teague and Anthony Davis.

While we're on the subject of Teague, take a look at what that kid has amounted to in the NBA. Nothing. Teague was basically a victim of being the point guard on the national championship team with an insane amount of hype surrounding them. Teague bolted for the draft and now flirts with being sent to the D-League on a daily basis. Teague's success in college was a direct result of who his teammates were and we now see that he was and is nowhere near NBA-ready. If the rules of the draft were different, Teague would have gained another year or two of experience in college and potentially been a better pick-up for a team down the road.

I am not saying kids should be required to attend four years of college. Would that be ideal? Yes. It benefits the players, fans, and NBA organizations if kids gain more experience at the college level. It also makes for better basketball for both the NCAA and the NBA. Could you imagine if Jabari Parker was required to stay another year or two and teamed up with Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones next year? I'm not a Duke fan by any means but I would watch every single game I could if those three were to be on the court at the same time, especially after living near Chicago and watching Parker and Okafor play in high school. You could also make the argument that Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers would STILL be at Duke. Just let that sink in.

Need more examples? Think of Ben McLemore and Andrew Wiggins manning the wings for Kansas. Think of Cody Zeller being on the same front court as Noah Vonleh. What if Bradley Beal was still in Final Four-contender Florida's back court? The list goes on and it's proof that the college game would be so much better and so much more competitive if players were told they had to stay put for more than one year. For school's like Kentucky that just bring freshman in and then ship them out a year later it's not fair to the kids or the fans. Are those Kentucky kids ever part of the program? Are they ever a part of the tradition that school has? Or are they just an experiment to see if Calipari can win with freshman only to be told "Sorry, you didn't live up to expectations. On to the next one."?

Oden has worn a suit more than he's worn an NBA uniform

Also, think of what kind of message you as a professional league are promoting to these kids. You are telling these kids that they can basically go to one year of schooling and then go to the NBA and get paid. That's not how it works. Take Greg Oden for example: the poor guy left after his freshman year of college only to be absolutely demolished by knee injuries. To this day he has still not played a full season and has been out of college for six years. Now, was he capable of playing in the NBA after his freshman year? Yes. BUT now he is likely to not have much of a future in basketball. What does he have to fall back on? It's not easy to get a job in the real world with only one year of college. It's unfortunate that Oden has had such misfortune, but he would be better equipped for the situation if he had to go to school more than one year. These athletes are called STUDENT-athletes for a reason and that's because school should always come first. This "one and done" rule promotes nothing about educational value rather it allows kids to think that they are guaranteed a future in basketball if they are selected in the draft at 19 years of age.

There are plenty of other reasons that would support why kids should be made to stay in college more than just one year. However, I would hope that you would take all of this into consideration and realize that promoting the "one and done" system is not only hurting these kids, but it is watering down your league as well. Kids are not as prepared or ready to compete at such a high level unless they are one-of-a-kind or once-in-a-generation players like Parker, Wiggins, Randle, and Gordon. The rule must be changed and the age must be raised if both the NCAA and NBA wish to present the world with as high-caliber basketball as possible. Your move, NBA.

Happy Holidays,
Nathan A. Wadley