March Madness in the NIL era

[rastajenk]

Who ya got? One of the high points in the sports calendar is coming up.

I watched less college ball than ever this year, but I watched the tournaments this week and caught some current form. Seems pretty wide open to me. After the top line, there's a lot of parity in the 2-16 seeds; will have to do some heavy bracketology this evening.

I used to look for a team with seniors and/or capable guard play and some other historical tendencies (coaches' success, i.e.) that, I have a feeling, might be too old school in modern times. Last year I came up with a couple all-time horrible brackets. Looking to rebound.

No pick here yet: just setting up a thread to see how other observers observe the next couple weeks.

[ElKabong]

Cougar High (U of H) plays excellent defense, was the best team in the toughest conference. If I I had to make a pick, it's them

[rastajenk]

For what it's worth, two main takeaways so far:

AT&T has benched Lily in favor of a round woman of some color, and a nerdy looking black guy. This doesn't rise to the level of Bud Light, Target, and other extreme examples of Wokeness, but why mess with a good thing? Lilly has been loyal and deserves better.

Jim Nantz isn't doing any games this year. I hadn't heard that in advance. I guess he's saving his pipes for A Tradition Like No Other.

I have an ESPN bracket that hit the first 10 games Thursday. For about an hour I was in the 100th percentile out of 22 million entries. Then Kentucky lost, and on Friday that bracket reverted to the mean. It was fun while it lasted.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

They are definitely letting them play this year.

No ticky-tack fouls on the perimeter and they are allowed to bang around on the inside.

I really like how this tournament is being reffed.

With that said, I have Purdue vs Illinois in the Final in a B10 rematch with Arizona and Houston rounding out the Final Four.

[mountainman]

Just my take..but NIL money and an easily accessed transfer portal have so drastically tilted the balance of power between players and coaches that the latter have been pretty much reduced to rolling the ball out and watching free-lance play that makes inner-city streetball look like a Hickory Huskers practice. When Norman Dale is peeved.

Dudes jacking up logo J's without even squaring up..launching 40 foot lob passes on every second possession..and what is WITH standing 14 inches behind the line when shooting a free throw?????

I'm sure I come across like get-off-my-lawn guy, and today's players might punk those of yesteryear in terms of athleticism. But Bobby Knight, these coaches are not.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Just my take..but NIL money and an easily accessed transfer portal have so drastically tilted the balance of power between players and coaches that the latter have been pretty much reduced to rolling the ball out and watching free-lance play that makes inner-city streetball look like a Hickory Huskers practice. When Norman Dale is peeved.

Dudes jacking up logo J's without even squaring up..launching 40 foot lob passes on every second possession..and what is WITH standing 14 inches behind the line when shooting a free throw?????

I'm sure I come across like get-off-my-lawn guy, and today's players might punk those of yesteryear in terms of athleticism. But Bobby Knight, these coaches are not.

Yes, the game has changed old man.

The really really good players don't hang around long in college, and are off to the NBA in short order.

Calipari used to roll with 5 to 7 guys that were top 20 rated players at Kentucky and win championships with Freshman and Sophomores. Well, those days are long gone.

The college game is kind of back to its old roots of experienced players being a huge asset and big and physical teams winning the day.

Sure, the chuck and duck recipe can win some games here and there, but the real teams that advance in the NCAA tournament and win 4 of more games in a row have experience and can play defense and rebound.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

Yes, the game has changed old man.

The really really good players don't hang around long in college, and are off to the NBA in short order.

Calipari used to roll with 5 to 7 guys that were top 20 rated players at Kentucky and win championships with Freshman and Sophomores. Well, those days are long gone.

The college game is kind of back to its old roots of experienced players being a huge asset and big and physical teams winning the day.

Sure, the chuck and duck recipe can win some games here and there, but the real teams that advance in the NCAA tournament and win 4 of more games in a row have experience and can play defense and rebound.

I think that is a stain on the game. It isn't "college" basketball anymore. I can see the occasional one and done, but there are hordes of them now. With all the money the NBA makes, they should expand the G league or whatever they call it. Scholarships should not be wasted on kids just there to kill a year that I doubt have even seen the inside of a classroom. Why can't the NBA get a following for minor league teams that baseball does? Expand the draft
and send High School kids to the minors like baseball. You can't pay Lebron 45 mil instead of 47 mil and finance a AAA basketball team?



The local AA baseball team is broadcast on on FM station and on AM station and sells out on opening night and promo nights. The stadium sets 9500 for baseball.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

Yes, the game has changed old man.

I chuckled at this and realized I AM an old man. I'm just not sure when and how it happened.

Pertaining to the evolution of college hoops: One aspect that seems phased out is the perimeter game. Players launch 3's or slash to the rim while often spurning anything in between. I'm sure analytics plays into this.

And to your point about experience having become a key component of deep runs into the tournament, I was just listening to some CBS sports-talk host opining that teams are actually better served these days by recruiting the sort of (slightly?) lower-ranked prospects likelier to stick around long enough to mesh with and develop loyalty to the program. Thus future dentists should trump future lottery picks. What a concept.

[rastajenk]

Well, I heard some expert on ESPN opining that yes, experience and leadership are still keys to advancing in the tournament these days, but now you (a coach) just go out and get one instead of 'developing' one within the 'program.' The sudden turnaround of some of these former unknown teams is a grad student with eligibility, or a transfer that was on a tourney team last year, according to Seth Greenberg, I think, could have been any of them. Point is, recruiting means something different than it used to. Used to be called 'tampering.'

Having given up the control of TV this winter to the wife-unit, I didn't watch much during the season, I just checked scores and rankings once in a while. So I have to to mountainman's observations, but if I have to change my old man views to maintain interest...I'll try.