Why College Hoops Is Superior to the NBA

On the latest BS Report Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman (Jer’s been on the Klosterman bandwagon for awhile. Front row seats, popcorn, and a cup holder for his Miller Lite on the Klosterman bandwagon. Me? Just getting on board in the back with the bench seating. Getting pretty crowded. Need to read a couple of his books so I can move up. Wait, while we’re on the subject of Klosterman, his landmark/trademark book that made him semi-famous was Fargo Rock City, which from what Jer says is about 80’s hair metal. I just never got into 80’s hair metal. Honestly, I didn’t really find my own musical identity until the early 90’s when I hit high school and discovered “Grunge” –first cd I ever owned was STP’s Core, which, let’s be honest, is pretty awesome. My first tape? Yeah don’t ask- so I was reliant on my older sister for music since back in those days we listened to things called “cassette tapes” on “walkmans” while riding in the car. Why didn’t we each have a Walkman? I have no idea, but we didn’t. Anyway, my parents wouldn’t let me listen to Bon Jovi or Motley Crue or G’N’R when they were big anyway. Does the music your kids listen to REALLY make that big of a difference? If it does I think there’s a lot more than just bad music going on. Where was I going with this? Oh yeah so the wife-to-be and I were watching TV Wednesday night, distraught that Lost was a rerun- honest to goodness there’s only like 13 or 14 episodes in a season now: HOW IN THE HELL CAN THEY JUSTIFY RERUNS?!?!?!?- and stumbled upon VH1’s Top 100 songs of the 80’s. Three hours later we found out Bon Jovi’s “Living on a Prayer” was voted the #1 song of the decade. Top 5 song, sure, but how is Billie Jean by Michael Jackson not #1? Granted, Jackson is a total raving complete nutjob now, and when I tell my future kids about how famous he used to be they’re going to think me weird, but doesn’t Michael Jackson and Billie Jean define 80’s music much more than Bon Jovi? Maybe not. All of this is to say I now do appreciate some hair metal like Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, AC/DC and G’N’R’- at their apex during the Appetite for Destruction days, was there even 5 bands better all-time? Honestly, was there?- I still feel the 90’s were a much better decade for music, or at least the first six or seven years of the 90’s) were discussing whether college or pro hoops is better, with Klosterman falling on the correct side that college hoops IS not just superior, but FAR superior to the NBA. I don’t even see how this is an argument.

Simmons’ had two major points, the first of which I agree with: with so many guys in college being one-and-done, it’s difficult to follow the sport from season to season because there’s SO much turnover. Yep, there’s really no defense for that one, and it’s the reason I don’t watch more college hoops, because it’s difficult to get attached to anyone. However, when the NBA has another lockout in 2011, IF the sport returns intact, you’d better believe it will return with at least a 20 year old age minimum, meaning guys will have to stay at least two years. I would even say to go the extra mile and make it like the NFL, where players have to be out of high school for three years before they’re draft eligible. It would just be better for everyone involved. And please don’t whine about guys like Lebron, Kobe, KG and others who you think didn’t need college. Other than Lebron and Moses Malone, they did. No really, they did. I’ve been over this at length before, but the others, even Kobe, didn’t dominate until they had at least two years in the league. This makes college basketball more fun to follow because the stars stick around, and it makes the NBA better because the college kids are better prepared to come in make an impact right away.

Simmons’ other point was that the level of talent is so much less in college that it’s hard to watch, to which I would say- really Bill? When exactly? For the last eight minutes of the game when guys in the NBA actually try? Because for the first 40 minutes of an NBA game, players are just out there d***ing around because there’s 81 other games in the season and they’re guaranteed their bloated salaries, so who really cares? Not the players. Read Simmon’s column about the Clippers blowing a 19 point lead with 11 minutes left to the Cavs, and he defeats his own argument. For the first three quarters Lebron James, who is unquestionably the best player in the league right now, jacks up threes and takes bad shots, and not until the fourth does he start playing smart, intense basketball. This is true of 99.9% of games not involving Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and on some nights, still Jason Kidd (while Paul and Williams are better players, Nash is still the best at running an uptempo offense and getting his teammates not just involved, but in position to take smart shots right from the opening tip). It’s sloppy, poorly played basketball by guys who are infinitely talented, yet are so coddled and getting paid so much, the vast majority of them can’t be bothered to try the entire game simply because they don’t have to (for me, this goes back to a much larger problem that is AAU basketball. It’s here that the idea that the super talented kids should be coddled and treated differently and not forced to learn the fundamentals starts, and it hurts everyone. If the NBA really wants to improve its product and level of fan interest, start at its roots by taking over the AAU and forcing teams and players to practice much more than they play. Force them to learn the fundamentals, and maybe we wouldn’t be stuck with a professional league where like four guys- literally four- are capable of hitting a mid-range jump shot).

College hoops, on the other hand, has passion, intensity and energy, and while the talent level is certainly less than the NBA, it’s still far better basketball to watch because the guy’s give a crap. Winning means EVERYTHING for these kids, and the fans, and it shows. In the NBA? Not so much. It’s also much better structured basketball to watch because teams run an offense AND will even run a defense and press. Crazy ideas, I know.

Klosterman was also right in shooting down Simmon’s argument about college hoops and minor league baseball being the same. Wrong. The sole purpose of minor league baseball is to develop the good players for the major leagues. That’s it. Winning really, truly is secondary down there. Sure, they like to fill the seats, but the major league team is paying the bills, so it’s all about developing the players with the most potential regardless of win/loss record. I’m not saying that’s bad, I’m just saying that’s how it is. In college sports, it’s all about winning- oh, um and of course, um, going to class and being good student athletes. Right, sure it is. But seriously it’s all about winning.

So if you’ve got a better argument on why the NBA is a better basketball product than college hoops, I’d love to hear it, but I can’t fathom what it would be. Yes, the star players only sticking around a year definitely hurts the interest in college basketball, and I’ve watched a lot less than I used to because of it, but I’ve still watched far more college hoops than pro this year. And as general rule, if you stick to the Big East, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10, and any game involving Gonzaga, you’re guaranteed to see the best the college game has to offer (sorry Big 10 fans- that conference is just gawd-awful to watch. Truly, stab my eyes out with a pen awful. Unless you like 54-52 games with shooting percentages in the 30’s. In which case, you almost might enjoy women’s basketball). If you want to watch the best the NBA has to offer, better wait until the playoffs- and that’s only IF you get a game where terrible refing doesn’t ruin/decide the outcome. Good luck with that.