Anyone still follow college basketball?

[oldmaninthedesert702]

Gonzaga is taking it all, and having the first perfect season since the 75 Hoosiers, or maybe 73, one of the two, too much good weed

 

[msgkings322]

I have watched more college basketball this year than in a long time but it’s just not the game it used to be in my opinion. I think Gonzaga finally gets over the hump and wins this year.

That's who I'm rooting for just like tlance, so a midmajor wins

 

[oldmaninthedesert702]

I was a big fan of Adonal Foyle back in the day.

May have been the last time I saw Colgate play.

i like the over, opened 153, bet up to 161.5, that is a big jump in 24 hours

 

[mr.hockey4242]

What do you guys think about Colgate over Arkansas? I know nothing about colgate but they're saying it can be a fun game which sounds like possible upset alert if you ask me

Dont know much about them outside the fact that they can really shoot and score the ball. But that game should be electric. Arkansas is definitely worthy of their seed and musselman is a great coach that loves his offense but I think its the type of team that can get upset. Not really a "weve been here before type of team" and play in shoot outs. Recipe for upset.

That said, in my main bracket of what I think will happen, Ill be taking Arkansas.

 

[msgkings322]

I was a big fan of Adonal Foyle back in the day.

May have been the last time I saw Colgate play.

Met him a couple times, he still lives in SF. Really nice dude, very friendly

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I have watched more college basketball this year than in a long time but it’s just not the game it used to be in my opinion. I think Gonzaga finally gets over the hump and wins this year.

I've done pretty well on taking teams to "get over the hump" the last few years.

Years back when Nova won their first title, most people still had them as the 1st weekend chokers. I just felt that team was different. They did it.

Viriginia two years ago. Just felt like that was the year. It worked.

Unfortunately a few years back I also thought was the year Gonzaga finally gets over the hump......and they lost in title game. So we will see hahaha.

 

[broncosmitty]

Met him a couple times, he still lives in SF. Really nice dude, very friendly

No shit?

Think I was a fan on account of how up beat he was. Was like 25 years ago. He’s the only thing I think of when somebody says Colgate.

 

[msgkings322]

No shit?

Think I was a fan on account of how up beat he was. Was like 25 years ago. He’s the only thing I think of when somebody says Colgate.

That and toothpaste, yeah me too LOL

Yeah he's just how you would figure him, super positive guy

 

[dtgold88]

I stopped caring 7-8 years ago, just tired of the same teams and the faceless players (the good ones only play one year, in the old days you'd get excited watching a great college player who'd been building his rep for 2-3 years face off against another), not to mention the much lower level of skill. Hasn't helped that Cal has been shitty for years.

Gotta say it's refreshing to see a bracket without Duke or Kentucky even in the thing, and some uncommon names with very high seeds like Illinois and Houston.

The 538 nerds say Gonzaga is the favorite, what do y'all think?

Other than OSU and the BIG I have not watched much this season. Does seem like this could be a tourney ripe with upsets as while I like seeing a team like Houston at 2 how much competition have they faced? Gonzaga at least played a number of early OOC tough games I think.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[bksballer89]

This is why I'll always prefer CBB over CFB even though I'm a bigger football fan than basketball

 

[tabascojet]

Because those schools can get kids to stay 4 years and build something.....

 

[msgkings322]

I thought there'd be a lot of upsets, more than usual this year. Because of Covid the committee had less information to work with

 

[trojanfan12]

I thought there'd be a lot of upsets, more than usual this year. Because of Covid the committee had less information to work with

There has also been less training camp, fewer practices, some teams had their seasons interrupted because of Covid protocols, etc.

That makes the advantage of having players that have been together for 3-4 years even bigger.

 

[jontaejones]

I've had years where I've flip flopped and watched more NBA than college, but generally, I'm more of a college fan.

NBA play is better but the kids in college play with more intensity. During the playoffs, the intensity comes out, but there's too much certainty. Every now and then, there's a big upset (8 over a 1) but it's rare. There's too many meaningless games and too many games period. College is also a very short season and every game means something to your seed. The NBA season goes on forever...

I'm not gonna get into it, but the superteam thing hasn't helped one bit. It's been terrible for the NBA.

I'll also say that kids leaving early has hurt BOTH sports. Tyler Herro would be a junior right now at Kentucky. Not even a senior. And he's a prominent NBA player.

And Adam Silver would agree with me.

 

[trojanfan12]

NBA play is better but the kids in college play with more intensity. During the playoffs, the intensity comes out, but there's too much certainty. Every now and then, there's a big upset (8 over a 1) but it's rare. There's too many meaningless games and too many games period. College is also a very short season and every game means something to your seed. The NBA season goes on forever...

Agree re: the season. But it's not likely to change. Too much money involved.

I'm not gonna get into it, but the superteam thing hasn't helped one bit. It's been terrible for the NBA.

This is just false for a couple of reasons.

1.) The NBA has always had "superteams". It goes all the way back to the 50's and 60's with the old Minneapolis Lakers and especially the Celtics who had a Hal of Famer or 2 coming off the bench.

2.) The NBA popularity has done nothing but grow, especially since 1980. Only the NFL is more popular in America and only soccer is more popular worldwide.

I'll also say that kids leaving early has hurt BOTH sports. Tyler Herro would be a junior right now at Kentucky. Not even a senior. And he's a prominent NBA player.

Agree to a point, it's more about the one and done than leaving early. I think they should go back to allowing players to enter the NBA straight from high school. Imo, it would lead to more players choosing college because they want to be there rather than because they have to.

 

[jontaejones]

Agree re: the season. But it's not likely to change. Too much money involved.


This is just false for a couple of reasons.

1.) The NBA has always had "superteams". It goes all the way back to the 50's and 60's with the old Minneapolis Lakers and especially the Celtics who had a Hal of Famer or 2 coming off the bench.

2.) The NBA popularity has done nothing but grow, especially since 1980. Only the NFL is more popular in America and only soccer is more popular worldwide.



Agree to a point, it's more about the one and done than leaving early. I think they should go back to allowing players to enter the NBA straight from high school. Imo, it would lead to more players choosing college because they want to be there rather than because they have to.

You may be right about the overall popularity with youngsters, but the popularity for people who like to see organic team growth ...

I disagree with the superteam thing. Yes, they have always been around but not this degree. If they had always been around like they are now, then I wouldn't have noticed any difference... I've been watching NBA my whole life.

 

[trojanfan12]

You may be right about the overall popularity with youngsters, but the popularity for people who like to see organic team growth ...

I disagree with the superteam thing. Yes, they have always been around but not this degree. If they had always been around like they are now, then I wouldn't have noticed any difference... I've been watching NBA my whole life.

There have always been superteams, we just didn't call them that and some, for various reasons, have been more successful than others. Some of the less successful ones tend to get forgotten about. For example, in the 80's you had the Lakers and Celtics, but folks forget that the 76ers, for example had a team with Dr. J, Moses Malone and Mo Cheeks. They also had one with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.

The only real difference between now and in the past is that teams that were never able to form superteams, have been able to. In the past, it was pretty much the Celtics, Lakers and 76ers. In more recent times, we have seen the Heat, Cavs, Warriors, Clippers and Nets form their own (or very close to it). Heck, the Spurs had a superteam or close to a superteam for nearly 20 years.

The other difference is that, in the past, it was always team driven through drafts, trades and occasional FA signings. Now superteams are more player driven because they have much better free agency rights than they did in the past and they've figured out how to use that to play where they want and to an extent, with who they want.

The players being more involved and the fact that teams that never were able to form one before now have, is likely why you have noticed a difference. Well, those and there's a lot more coverage than there ever used to be.

 

[tlance]

There have always been superteams, we just didn't call them that and some, for various reasons, have been more successful than others. Some of the less successful ones tend to get forgotten about. For example, in the 80's you had the Lakers and Celtics, but folks forget that the 76ers, for example had a team with Dr. J, Moses Malone and Mo Cheeks. They also had one with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.

The only real difference between now and in the past is that teams that were never able to form superteams, have been able to. In the past, it was pretty much the Celtics, Lakers and 76ers. In more recent times, we have seen the Heat, Cavs, Warriors, Clippers and Nets form their own (or very close to it). Heck, the Spurs had a superteam or close to a superteam for nearly 20 years.

The other difference is that, in the past, it was always team driven through drafts, trades and occasional FA signings. Now superteams are more player driven because they have much better free agency rights than they did in the past and they've figured out how to use that to play where they want and to an extent, with who they want.

The players being more involved and the fact that teams that never were able to form one before now have, is likely why you have noticed a difference. Well, those and there's a lot more coverage than there ever used to be.

You said it at the end.

The difference is that back in the day superteams were formed organically by savvy GM moves. Today, they are orchestrated by the players.

The end result is the same, but many are turned off by how it gets done today.

Personally, it doesn’t bother me. I like that athletes today have some ability to control where they work.

 

[jontaejones]

There have always been superteams, we just didn't call them that and some, for various reasons, have been more successful than others. Some of the less successful ones tend to get forgotten about. For example, in the 80's you had the Lakers and Celtics, but folks forget that the 76ers, for example had a team with Dr. J, Moses Malone and Mo Cheeks. They also had one with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.

The only real difference between now and in the past is that teams that were never able to form superteams, have been able to. In the past, it was pretty much the Celtics, Lakers and 76ers. In more recent times, we have seen the Heat, Cavs, Warriors, Clippers and Nets form their own (or very close to it). Heck, the Spurs had a superteam or close to a superteam for nearly 20 years.

The other difference is that, in the past, it was always team driven through drafts, trades and occasional FA signings. Now superteams are more player driven because they have much better free agency rights than they did in the past and they've figured out how to use that to play where they want and to an extent, with who they want.

The players being more involved and the fact that teams that never were able to form one before now have, is likely why you have noticed a difference. Well, those and there's a lot more coverage than there ever used to be.

First off, this argument could obviously go on forever, which is why I said I didn't want to get into it.

Secondly, 'terrible' was probably a strong word.

There's a definitely a difference TO ME as a fan between seeing Jordan and Pippen evolve as players and lose first, and just have multiple NBA MVPs plopped into your lap.

Not those fans cannot enjoy it. But there's a difference. I know you get my point.