NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two

NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-15-13)

[Part one - League of Children]



TODD:
I don't think you quite understand the term "win-win." It is not a win for college basketball that this is happening. Sure, this one season they will have transcendent freshmen all over the nation. But what about next year? This draft class is a once-in-a-decade type deal, maybe even more rare than that. And is this one year in college actually helping the growth of these guys once they turn pro? I haven't seen the statistics but I wonder how much better the one-and-dones have been as compared to the guys who were coming straight from high school years ago. Obviously both groups have huge successes and huge failures but overall, both the NBA and NCAA make us think this is working. I'm not sold.

To your point that college basketball has become a proving ground for future pros, this is both correct and wrong. It is correct factual, in that it is actually happening. It is wrong morally though, in that it should not be happening.

Many have suggested an MLB-type declaration situation to solve this problem. A prospective pro coming out of high school can either enter his name in the draft right away or, if he decides to go to college, he must stay three years. I like this solution on the surface but it wouldn't have saved college basketball. Remember how eight of the top eleven draft picks are incoming college freshmen? Well, with that draft rule in place, all eight of those guys would have entered the 2013 NBA draft. So instead of having one year of them, the NCAA would have gotten none.

The only solution is to go all-out and throw our cards on the table. College basketball is an inferior product; everyone should agree on this, even the staunchest defenders. No one can argue the basketball being played on the court is better at the collegiate level than at the pros. That would be ludicrous. So why not adopt the 'high school or three years' draft rule with a caveat? Anyone entering the NBA draft out of high school plays their first year of basketball in the NBDL, the developmental league. Right now the asset that is the D-League is being wasted. A player dropped down to it is deemed a disaster or a failure. Remove the galling stigma attached to the NBDL by making it a young man's learning league. All the best 18 year olds in the world will be learning on the fly against guys just short of NBA talent. This would be better for them than a year of college. It would also be better for the NBA by avoiding the flood of high schoolers who aren't ready for the professional ranks just yet that occurred when the old draft rules were in place.

But what about college basketball you ask? Well, CBB gets dumbed down because there is no win-win option here. It loses the elite talent that would otherwise play one season. But what it gains is better: players coming who want to be there, want to learn and want to play for a school. It will grow consistency and the overall product on the floor will be better, even if the top level is slightly worse. College basketball is never going to be as exciting or athletic or as powerful as the NBA game; why try to force it?


DAN:
There is no way to force an NBA level product out of college basketball. There is not nearly enough talent to go around. If there were THAT many NBA level players, we'd have 100 teams in the NBA. So we can safely throw that hope, prayer, ignorant folly out the window. And you're right, improving the NBDL by having draft picks who skip college spend a year there will ultimately hurt the college game. It would also take a huge effort on the part of the NBA to make this work. Can you name me a single D-League player or team? Where are they, who is playing and when do they even play? I have no idea. Talk about a lot of money needed to sell an invisible product. I'm chucking that idea in the trash too. I'm also against forcing three years of college upon someone obviously ready to make millions of dollars. Trashing it!

I love your ingenuity, your willingness to change and find a new model that can potentially elevate both the NBA and college basketball. But I think you're avoiding the obvious. If a player wants to be in college, stay in college, and play for his school for two, three, four years, there is absolutely nothing stopping him. These elite freshman don't have to enter the draft after one year of college basketball. They are choosing to. They have a choice. And you know why all eight of them will most likely make the choice to leave, because all of us in the public and the media would consider them stupid to say in college. Take your money when its on the table. Don't risk injury. Blah, blah, blah. They would get lambasted for going back. Andrew Luck practically did, but because college football is held in such high regard and there is less money in the NFL draft now, it wasn't deemed such a bad decision.

I agree, having the freshman earn their stripes against NBA bench players is better for their careers than playing in college. But the glaringly obvious truth you've missed is that college basketball has changed. The whole reason you want to 'fix' things is because you can remember a time when it was great. When players played in college and rivalries were real and school spirit meant something. That era is dead. Money and a booming NBA killed it. Accept this fact and move on.... Are you good now? Tears all dry? Cool, now we can have a real debate.

NCAA basketball can be improved. The quality of play has been reasonably consistent over the last ten years. The best coaches have excellent teams and the superstar players stand out when they exist. They are the anomaly. We have at the very most, ten of them sprinkled over fifty or more schools every year. Remove them from this equation. I think the biggest thing holding back the college game is a lack of scoring. They've made strides to address this, but more should/can be done. The best parts of March Madness are when a game gets tight down the stretch, with under two minutes to play. Those games are often 60 to 55 or something ridiculous like that. You get your 70 and 80 point games, but do you see the problem? NBA games are 90 and 100 point affairs. Scoring 80 or less is a fire-able offense. I think some rule changes are in order! Good thing the NCAA already made some. I smell debate.

Let's first address the changes made heading into this college basketball season. You're the perfect man for this job. Did the NCAA do enough with the current changes? I realize we have yet to see the full results, but they only did tweaking as far as I'm concerned; was it enough? I want to increase scoring and remove the annoyance of two minutes at the end of a game taking nearly thirty minutes of my time. Cut that down to ten or fifteen and I'm good. And I'm not talking small changes like shortening the shot clock. That's a good start, but we need BIG game changers. What about adding a line at NBA three point range that would count for four points? Or removing time outs in the first half entirely, except for injury. Light a fire under college basketball.


TODD:
Your complete dismissal of my D-League idea is very pigheaded of you. My idea solves the one problem you touched on. No one knows anything about the NBDL or follows it in the least. This will change instantly if all the best NBA rookies play there. Every season, half a dozen or so D-League guys get called up to the majors. Now, people will follow the progress of their team's top rookie as well as hear about/watch some other potential rotation players that might be on the way as well. The only downside to this is logistically; the NBDL is not setup like minor league baseball. NBA teams do not all have D-League affiliations...yet.

Your defense of the current rule is also disappointing. You stood by it claiming these guys have a choice; they don't have to leave after one year. That statement is obviously true, but the top players do not have a choice when they want one: coming out of high school. At that point, their control in the matter is squished, as they are not allowed to enter the NBA draft even if they want to and are ready to. So why not actually give them the choice when they graduate from high school? Either enter the NBA or go to college with the intent on staying for a few years and learning. There's your choice.

But since you killed off old college basketball, I am glad you brought up the rule "changes." Changes is in quotes because the biggest alteration wasn't really a change to any rule, just an emphasis on enforcing an old rule correctly. No more hand checking or arm bars or two hands on an offensive player. No more slowing down offensive player movement and progress. No more wild running through the lane in basketball, the equivalent to running a gauntlet machine in football practice. This was obviously smart and necessary. It will increase scoring in two distinct ways: more free throws while guys get used to the whistles and better shots on offense since ball handlers can't get checked and held as much.

However, the NCAA did absolutely nothing to help that last two minutes business you mentioned. This is the real killer of all basketball games to be honest, pro included. And there is really no simple fix; anything would be drastic. You could get rid of some of the timeouts available, but that would change the entire coaching philosophy of final possession basketball. You could penalize intentional fouls more harshly, but this would almost completely remove the possibility of late-game comebacks. I think the only change that could even occur would just be a simple shortening of timeouts. Make them all 30 seconds, or even 20 seconds. Or allow a timeout to be used as an advance of the ball to mid-court, like in the NBA, but have there be no stoppage of time at all. These are just small nuanced switches that could be implemented. As sad as it sounds, I see no feasible move that could fix the problem without changing the sport.

I know people would be up in arms, but how would you feel about limiting (or eliminating) timeouts near the end of games? It would reduce a coach's usefulness almost to zero and force the players themselves to make calls and adjustments in the final seconds. It would make things more interesting I assume, but interesting can be both good and bad.


DAN:
I admire your D-League idea, but do we really follow players in baseball through the minors? Really? We keep track of the absolute top prospects when they are close to being called up, but we don't follow their performance, only the date in which they will make their major league debut. And how many minor league games are televised? If the idea is to showcase the rookies, we need to be able to watch them. And we need to care about the teams they play for. This is by no means impossible, just a larger mountain than I was prepared to climb.

On the flip side, I'm all for any rule change that can speed up the dreaded thirty minutes of thirty seconds of play at the end of games. If eliminating, or limiting, time outs accomplishes this, then hell yes! I honestly believe that for regular season college basketball to be interesting to the national public, something drastic must be done. March Madness has held its own, thanks to gambling, but its by no means safe. Change the damn sport. Without top level talent, year in and year out, its going to die anyways.

[If you missed Part one - League of Children]

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-11-13)



TODD:
The college basketball season tipped off just a few days ago. Early season games are being played between ranked teams and November records seem to mean more than ever before. In fact, tomorrow #1 Kentucky faces #2 Michigan State and #4 Duke plays #5 Kansas. Not bad for the first week of the season.

But that is not the story for the start of the year. The story is related to this:

1. Andrew Wiggins
2. Julius Randle
3. Dante Exum
4. Jabari Parker
5. Marcus Smart
6. Joel Embiid
7. Aaron Gordon
8. Andrew Harrison
9. James Young
10. Dario Saric
11. Wayne Selden

Those are the projected top eleven picks in the 2014 NBA Draft according to ESPN draft expert Chad Ford. Nevermind the fact that six of them play for either Kansas or Kentucky. That isn't the story either. (...Well, it kind of is.) Of those eleven men, the BEST eleven pro prospects mind you, only one had played a single second of college basketball prior to this week, and that is Marcus Smart (who is a returning sophomore). The other 10 of 11 prospects are either freshmen or from overseas.

Let's let that sink in for a second.

Need more time?

We good? Okay.

So eight of the best eleven prospects in the world (according to ESPN's Chad Ford) are freshmen who had never played any collegiate basketball before. Two come from overseas and one lone man, who plays his basketball at Oklahoma State, is the only elite prospect with any kind of college experience. This is fascinating; it is unbelievable; it is uncanny and, to be honest, rather embarrassing.

Now I realize many have talked about the famed 2014 draft as possibly the best ever. People were looking ahead and realized this potential a year ago. Truth is, this might be the best that some of these guys ever look. It's possible at least a couple flame out as freshmen and their NBA stock drops a bit, or they return to school (HAHA, yeah right!). But taking this early mock draft at face value, the bottom line is this: the landscape of college basketball is kind of a joke.

Take a look again at those games being played on Tuesday. Kentucky is #1 in the country. Arguably their five best players are all freshmen. Kansas is #5, led by a couple freshmen, and even the Duke Blue Devils have a freshman as their best player. (Hell is freezing over, sell all your stock, buy that fancy car you've always wanted.) So not only are nearly all the top NBA guys freshmen, but many of the top teams are littered with players who will be leaving after just one season. This happens every year, but not like THIS.

Putting the specific 2013-2014 freshmen class aside, doesn't something need to change here for the product that is college basketball? Fix it my brother. Fix the sport.


DAN:
I need more time! Thinking.... thinking.... okay I concede. What's happened to college basketball?

Let me get my annoyed ranting out of the way first, because this NCAA season is both stupid and amazing. Personally, I find college basketball to be down right exciting, especially during tournament time. The holiday tournaments are usually top notch and competition for the top 25 is fierce. Yet the best eleven players are freshmen, unknowns, children with ridiculous amounts of talent and little game tape. I'm calling them children, not because of age, but because of their basketball experience. You need time with a top notch coach (collegiate level or higher) and a competition level rivaling your own to gain the intangibles needed for the NBA. Sure, you can compete and score, but you're still a kid until you've put a couple seasons under your belt.

So we now enter this NCAA basketball season full well knowing that Kansas and Kentucky are odds on favorites to be in the Final Four, if not the title game. Why? Because they own six of the top eleven players and everybody knows you only need one transcendent guy to run the table. They are all freshmen. Seriously! How did college basketball get itself in this position? What has cornered the sport into this inescapable situation? The NBA did this. Its popularity growth, especially overseas, has made college basketball inconsequential. Everyone wants to watch the best players, but they want to see them in a Knicks or Suns uniform (teams picked randomly, most people would probably not pick either of those teams). They want to see the best play the best, in the NBA, not the best clobber other inferior players until they run home crying. This is not actually a problem. Let that sink in.

The best thing about NCAA basketball has always been March Madness. That hasn't changed and knowing your team's best player will only compete in the tournament one time makes every game that much more special. Ultimately the one and done, with freshmen dominating the college game year after year, is great for the sport of basketball overall. It hurts the college game slightly, while boosting the NBA in incredible ways. I'm actually excited to see these eleven players play, knowing they will represent the top eleven in the NBA draft next year.

The NBA is becoming more synonymous with college basketball and vice versa. The college game is the proving ground, more so than ever before, with only a single season to show your worth. College sports is about the team name and logo on the front of the jersey, not on the back. So fans of a university will be excited no matter what. What drives a sport is the casual fan, the guys who want to watch for the top tier talent. And college basketball is going to have a ton of that this season. I say win, win.

I'm going out a limb here and saying you disagree. Yell at me some more and I'll give you your 'fix.'

[Part two - Remaking the game] 

Fan Focus: Storming the Court - Part two

Fan Focus: Storming the Court - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-13-13)

[Part one - Fan Etiquette on the Road]



DAN:
Let's start with a few safe assumptions for court storming. First off, the game must be over. Secondly, your team must have won the game. I'm calling these assumptions, because if either of those two don't apply then the court storming party is being an ass.

Rules for storming the court:

1 - You are under the age of 30.

Storming the court should be strictly limited to the young crowd. Its not proper for a sixty year old man to rush the field. But a group of college kids at the game? Hell yes!

2 - Your team has just executed a significant victory.

Significant is defined as playoff clinching, a playoff victory, championship victory, or major regular season upset. Major is defined as an unranked team defeating a ranked opponent.

Did you enjoy my analytical approach? I was going to add in a rule about being drunk, but no need to exclude the crazy sober crowd. I think if you're ranked, in the top 25, then its not a major victory to defeat the top team. Its big, but not court storming big. Since this act is almost exclusive to college sports (its illegal in the pros or something), we need to make sure it counts. Otherwise the fans would storm after every victory in order to turn the game into a giant party.


TODD:
Obviously I have no problem with your assumptions or your first rule. Your team has to have won, no question; and this is indeed a young man's game. No elderly.

Number two is where things get sketchy. You tried to map out what entails a significant victory but you did not cover nearly enough. And you also ventured into the wrong territory. Playoff and championship wins are rarely, if ever, played on someone's home court anymore. So that's one problem. And if the favorite wins a playoff game, should their fans rush the playing field? I say no.

Really the only allowable rushing occurs at regular season, big wins. Now you defined this as an unranked team defeating a ranked team. But this is pretty baseless. Should a top 40 program really rush the field if they take down the 25th ranked team in the country? That would be ludicrous. And even if your program is down on its luck, should the fans really rush the court if they beat a highly-ranked but lowly university, like say if Auburn football beat TCU? Sure TCU is a much better team these days but whose program would you really rather be a part of? Auburn wins that war and its fans should rush nothing. They have a recent national championship for heaven's sake!

It is hard to cover every example and situation with a blanket rule because there will always be exceptions. But a court-storming has to have a few factors:

- The team has to be the underdog
- They have to be under appreciated in some way, either historically or in that specific matchup (i.e. NC State vs. UNC basketball)
- They cannot have won a title, national or conference, in the last 7 years
- They cannot be ranked in any poll
- The vanquished squad has to be either very highly ranked now or historically highly thought of

If one of these factors is missing, don't do it kids. It makes your school look petty and childish, like you don't have any sense of where your team sits nationally. Take pride in your university; don't embarrass yourselves.


DAN:
Wow, way to crap on the party. By your logic, Duke should never storm the court after any victory, ever. You're completely wrong on this! If Duke goes undefeated in the regular season, hell yes the fans should storm the court. If they win the ACC title or National Championship, hell yes they should storm the court. In those last two scenarios the fans would be out of town, so even better. Trash someone else's arena!

This brings up a fun counterpoint. Is it okay to storm the court after victory has been snatched from your fingertips? Storming in anger that is. I had winning as an assumption, but its worth asking. Or is it okay to storm after someone on the team sets a national record?

I've never had the pleasure of storming a court. But it seems to me like anything goes. I'm envisioning the tiny Asian girl getting pushed around, or having to climb on her friend's shoulders so as not to get swallowed by the mob.

Give me your best/worst experience as a fan on the road. Tie this topic up in a nice pretty bow.


TODD:
You are correct; Duke fans should never storm the court, ever. But Duke students know this is the deal. They are smart students; smart, jerky, asshole students.

And in what scenario would a cluster of Duke fans storm the court for a National Championship that's being played in, say, Atlanta? Not only would they not be allowed on the court (college sports do have security and police, but they let it go if the ENTIRE arena charges them, not for a group of 30 kids), but it would look foolish even if they did. Storming the court is only cool if the court is flooded with members of the crowd, not spattered with them.

And really? Storming the court after a loss?? No. Victory was your first assumption and its a good one. Storming in anger is not cool and does not happen and storming for a player accomplishment would never happen either. The game would probably be stopped for a moment as it happened if it was that big of a deal, but nothing afterwards seems warranted.

I have stormed the playing surface before, both at basketball and football. It is a joyous time...for the first six or seven minutes. After those few minutes pass, it seems awkward and you are wondering when everyone is going to leave. So it's definitely an overrated action, but that only backs up why it should be saved for proper occasions. If you attend Duke, this occasion will not come up, and really, you chose Duke out of any school in the country?? How douchey of you.

As for being a fan on the road, I have never had the opportunity that I can recall. I am sure I've seen the Yankees play in some stadium other than their own, but nothing happened. It was so uneventful I cannot even remember it happening. That's baseball for you.

I have seen my alma mater football and basketball squads in neutral sites though, for whatever that's worth. What happens at neutral site games is that local sports fans end up snatching cheap tickets prior to the event and just are obnoxious to anyone rooting for either team actually playing. This happened when I saw Virginia Tech play in the Orange Bowl a few years back. The locals from Miami just got on us whenever something went against the Hokies. They didn't even care who won. It was bizarre.

[If you missed Part one - Fan Etiquette on the Road]

Fan Focus: Etiquette on the Road - Part one

Fan Focus: Etiquette on the Road - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-9-13)



DAN:
With the height of baseball season colliding perfectly with the start of the NFL calendar, let's take a long hard look at the fans for a moment. Fan Focus, telling you how not to be an ass for over ten years (length of time may be embellished).

Today I want to talk about stadium / ball park / arena etiquette. And not for the home crowd. They basically get to do whatever the hell they want. Its their team, their turf and their rules. I'm talking about watching your team play on the road, in the enemies backyard. Their are rules people and things to avoid so as not to get stabbed.

Do you have much experience with seeing your teams on the road? I've been watching the Yankees play the Angels out here in Anaheim for eight years running. Its an incredibly delightful experience and nothing like when I went to watch my New York Jets play the Patriots in Foxboro. I've seen the Celtics here in Los Angeles play the Clippers as well. Each sport is slightly different, but the rules don't change.

I'll start with rule number one and you can call me an idiot for bringing this up and give me rule number two.

First rule of fandom on the road; sit on the visiting side of the field. For baseball this is pretty easy to do, but with football its much greyer. My experience watching the Jets in New England brought me face to face with the roudy drunk Masshole Pats fan. I was in the upper deck, around plenty of Jets fans, but far outnumbered none the less. I wore a Jets hat, but nothing else. I felt that was respectful. Gotta show team spirit, but no need to rub it in on the road. But when I cheered on my team I found myself all too close to several fights, with beer thrown in my general direction. It was cold outside, bitter cold, too cold to tell if the beer actually hit me. Stupid bleeping Patriots fans.


TODD:
Road fan etiquette, as you hinted at, has almost nothing to do with the actions of the specific road fan. It has everything to do with the home environment the actions are taking place in. As you said, you got heckled and harassed just for wearing a Jets hat in Gillette Stadium. We hear stories of fans getting beaten up and sent to the hospital seemingly every season just for being fans of the opposing team. Perhaps those certain people were rowdy and inciting anger from the home crowd, but that is still no reason to cripple someone. I think no matter the actions, it is dangerous to be an opposing fan in certain locales. That is just the sad state of present sports fandom.

So first rule of road fan etiquette altered: only be an opposing fan in weak home parks, i.e. Atlanta basketball, Jacksonville football, etc. This way, not only will the crowd as a whole be sparse, but the likelihood of home fans rallying up enough to cause you fear or harm is limited.

The ironic part is these types of crowds are considered bad fan bases. You glossed over home crowd responsibility, but I want to go back to that. Home crowds have some etiquette of their own. The obvious ones exist:

- Don't cheer loudly at a home football game when your team is on offense
- Don't start a wave at a baseball game; it makes your fans look disinterested and childish
- Don't yell randomly when your basketball team is shooting free throws

These are the easy ones. The grey area that most often comes up for home crowds though, for collegiate sports at least, is when to charge the field/court. When is it okay to leap from the stands onto the playing field after a victory? If you topple the number one team in the country, this seems warranted. But what if you are the number eight team in the country? Does it not then seem a bit silly?

This has been dissected before on other platforms, but I am never quite content with the results. What should be the requirements for when a home, collegiate crowd can rush the court?


DAN:
Way to skip rule number two and jump right on the home team. But I LOVE that you brought up the wave as a major red flag for home teams. This ties nicely into my second rule.

The second rule for road fans; go watch your team in a fan friendly venue. One of my absolute favorite spots to go watch the Yankees is at Angels' Stadium in Anaheim. Angels' fans are really great, nice, inviting and just positive all around. They have the Rally Monkey and home run fireworks, but aren't dicks about you cheering for the opposition. Plus, when the Yankees are in town the stadium is at least 1/3 full of Yankees fans. Win!

But guess what else happens ALL the TIME in Angels' stadium? The wave! They do the wave a ton in that ballpark. Granted its practically at Disney Land so being childish is not unexpected. But they love the wave and I love visiting that ballpark.

Now to the hard question. What are the rules for rushing the court, storming the field, rushing the mound? I have only two.

[Part two - Storming the Court]

NBA Free Agency: Winners and Tankers - Part two

NBA Free Agency: Winners and Tankers - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (7-19-13)

[Part one - Crying tears of Joy]



DAN:
Next May we'll care more about who is bottoming out in the NBA and who's fighting to make the playoffs than who has the best overall record. Although the battle for best record in each conference shouldn't be overlooked. Chicago and the Nets will be giving Miami a real run for its money for home court advantage, and in the West Oklahoma City will have to fend off the Clippers and Spurs. However, the tankapalooza will surely be the biggest story. As for 8th seed squabbles, I can't disagree more with the importance of just making the playoffs when it comes to New Orleans and the Bucks.

There are two types of franchises in the NBA, perennial winners and everyone else. The list of winners is rather short, but happens to include my Celtics. As a winner they have the luxury of placing future success and the potential for more NBA titles ahead of current success, a la the upcoming season. The fans aren't going anywhere and have won so often in the past that they realize what's good for their team in the long run. Everyone else, teams like New Orleans and Milwaukee who you mentioned, need success to just keep going. Those owners can't take their fans for granted, can't tank a potential playoff season. How often do the Bucks or Pelicans make the playoffs? Once every five seasons if they're lucky? I'm not sure its even that good for those poor franchises.

As a Jets fan I know what its like to consistently miss the playoffs. And I know how amazing it is for my team to even be in the post season, let alone be competitive and advance a round or two. Now rooting for the Clippers for eight years, I have loved every minute of these last two seasons with playoff basketball. Sure, this past year could have been more successful, but considering the history of the team and its fans, this season was awesome! So as the New Orleans Pelicans, if you have even a decent team you have to work to make it better. You have to give your fans hope, a playoff berth. Fight for that post season spot. You aren't going to be the worst team in the league, so win more fans nationally with a first round playoff upset victory. That's exactly what you are congratulating the Pistons for doing in free agency!

I'm going to real back my tangent and stomp on your Clippers hate. DeAndre Jordan is getting traded before the season. And if for some reason he is still on the team, mark my words, you will not see Doc Rivers playing him with five minutes to go in the game. He is too big a free throw shooting liability. That is what Doc Rivers brings to the table. And I'm still on the Blake Griffin bandwagon. He WILL improve this season. His game will get better and another season playing with Chris Paul, come on, how can he not get smarter?


TODD:
How can Blake Griffin not get smarter? Duh. Because supposedly Griffin and CP3 hate each other...just sayin'.

But anyways, you make a great point on the fringe playoff contenders. I don't know why I liked the Pistons' moves so much more than those other squads. Maybe it's because they have a higher upside with those three bigs, two of which are very young. They still aren't making the Eastern Conference Finals with that group; I get it...although, would the Heat be able to handle them?? They'd be like Indiana on super pills, with three bigs instead of two, and no point guard close to the level of George Hill and no player anywhere near Paul George...alright, check that.

So maybe you're right about a team just making the playoffs can be a good thing. Although NBA history tells us the easiest way to get good is to bottom out first, Houston just proved that is not absolutely necessary. They toiled away in the middle for years, collecting assets and were able to turn them into two of the top 15 players in the league. It can be done, even if Daryl Morey almost lost his job in the process.

The only thing you brought up which isn't totally fair is the Jets comparison. Making the playoffs in the NFL is a much different beast. Any NFL playoff team can make the Super Bowl. In fact, the favorites rarely do it seems. The NBA does not have such circumstances and probably never will. It is not a league for Cinderella stories.


DAN:
Wow, excellent point but why is that? We NEVER see a Cinderella story in the NBA, but we get it in college hoops all the time. In every one of the other three major sports you see Cinderellas, teams who squeak into the post season and run all the way to the championship. It hadn't been common in baseball, but in the last several years its nearly a certainty that one team will surprise everyone come September into October. In the NFL we see it year in and year out, teams going deep into the playoffs seemingly out of nowhere.

Now these "Cinderella" stories don't always win it all, but in the NBA they never get past the second round of the playoffs. I was pulling so hard for Golden State this past season, just because having them in the Western Conference Finals would have felt like a Cinderella story. But even so, it wouldn't have been. The Warriors were really really good all season and by no means squeaked into the playoffs. The Lakers would have been the team this past year to meet the Cinderella qualification.

I know we jumped ship on the whole free agency and tanking debate, but you snagged my brain on this one. You're the college hoops expert, so why no NBA Cinderella teams when we get them in the NCAA so often?


TODD:
You bring up a slightly interesting point but it has nothing to do with college basketball. Cinderella stories happen so often in the NCAA because their playoffs are one game. The better team will win one game, say, 65% of the time...leaving us with upsets in 35% of all games being played. Thus, March Madness is filled with upsets! In a bunch of one-game series, it is not anarchy; it's just math.

As for hockey and baseball, there are two important equalizers that swing series unlike in other sports. Those equalizers are the goalie and the starting pitcher, respectively. The famous baseball saying is momentum is only as good as your next day's starting pitcher and a hot goalie can take you all the way. The best team does not necessarily have the best of these players.

NBA basketball is really quite simple. They play best of seven series so the best team has a much larger chance of winning. More importantly, a young team needs to go through the process and learn how to win, take their lumps, etc. You're first supposed to make the playoffs. The next year, you can win a round or two. Only after the third or fourth time experiencing "playoff basketball" should you be able to win the title. Teams don't come from nowhere and advance to the Finals. Just doesn't happen.

This makes things easy to predict for the upcoming NBA season. The Houston Rockets might make the West finals, but they don't know how to win yet. Mark it down. No championship for Dwight.


DAN:
On a completely unrelated topic... I'm getting MARRIED tomorrow! 7-20-13 Woooo!


TODD:
Yay! Best man in the house! And congrats of course.


DAN:
It's going to be a blast. I may be a bit dazed afterwards, so its fitting that we talk "What ha... happened?" next week. Then there'll be a one week Seesaw Sports hiatus for my honeymoon, to return in August with all out NFL.

[If you missed Part one - Crying tears of Joy]

NBA Draft 2013: Repairs & Reactions - Part two

NBA Draft 2013: Repairs & Reactions - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (6-28-13)

[Part one - A dull affair with Real consequence]



TODD:
So we agree the NBA draft is flawed, but how does it get fixed? I personally like the idea of instituting the baseball rule. A player can enter the draft out of high school if he wishes. However, if he decides to go to college, he must attend for at least three years. So the studs will enter out of high school and teams will drool all over them. The rest of the guys will gain the proper seasoning and experience during three years of major college basketball. We will get to know them; their games will improve; the NBA and NCAA products will both improve because of it.

Was there anyone in this year's draft you're even excited about? There are a few guys I like but no one that stands out to me. If I were a GM, I'd have been content to have a pick in the teens. There you can take the player you have the best feel for, without having to take one of the top guys with major flaws. Reaching for a player at 15 is no big deal. However, if you are Cleveland or Orlando and you pass on Nerlens Noel because of all the red flags (which they did), and he then becomes the next Tyson Chandler, you are in deep shit.


DAN:
The MLB rule for entering the draft works great in baseball, but the NBA had its chance to institute something similar and instead opted for a required one year in college. The reason is pretty obvious, Minor League Baseball is a huge entity and every single drafted player goes to the minors for at least a month or six. So coming out of high school is a null issue. The NBA doesn't use its development league in this way, hell it barely markets it. They addressed their biggest issue, all be it haphazardly, high school players getting drafted and not being ready for the NBA. In hindsight I think the NBA would make it a mandatory two years in college. The goal was to ensure top talent is NBA ready, bodies fully developed, skills honed at least a little bit. I don't think they've quite achieved this and the hype machine has certainly fallen flat in the last few years when the draft roles around.

So a draft fix? I'm taking your suggestion one step further. Actually use the damn D-league! The biggest hype in a draft is for the stars and nothing is bigger than a high school super star. These kids are all hype, since most of us fans have only seen clips of them play, if at all. So why not let them get drafted? Let the fans drool over hope and the future. Then send them to the D-league for a season and make money off those games too. Its not complicated. The MLB already has a model in place to follow. Come on man!

As for the draft that took place last night, here's hoping we get a star are two out of the bunch. No one excites me, just like no one stole the show during March Madness this season either. I wish this was a bigger deal, but its not. I'm still WAY excited for the NBA this summer. Doc Rivers is now the Clippers coach! Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are no longer Celtics! Dwight Howard is a free agent AGAIN. And what will CP3 do? I'm even excited for Ray Allen's contract decision. The NBA is chock full of stars. It doesn't need the draft, but they could really spice things up by having the current stars interview the potential newbies. I liked what Shane Battier brought to the table, but something was still missing. I want on camera hazing baby!


TODD:
I can't get with you on using the D-League like that. Basketball isn't the same as baseball as far as minor league development. There are way too many basketball players, the vast majority, who are ready to play in the NBA year one. They may not be ready to start or play big minutes. They may not be ready to hit an important shot at the end of a game. But they are ready to compete and contribute. So why send them away? If you're saying that just high school players should go to the NBDL, then we get into logistical problems of high school players who are ready to play right away versus college players who are not. Where is the line drawn and should a high school player then skip the draft and go to a year of college so he can avoid playing in the D-League? The list goes on.

We'll have to take another look at this problem next year when the crop of players is much better. Perhaps we're looking through whatever the opposite of rose-colored glasses are. Is the NBA draft really that horrible when there are potential franchise guys involved? This year there just isn't anyone like that.

You have to believe Cleveland is pretty upset, internally, about getting the number one pick this year versus a different season. They decided to go with Anthony Bennett, as I predicted they would last week in my mock draft for College Sports Madness. I was also spot on when predicting the Nerlens Noel drop. I had him going fifth and he lasted even longer than that.

I know you wanted to talk draft fixes, but last night pissed me off! The trading is AWFUL from an entertainment standpoint. Every trade happens after the picks are made and no trade is official; they are all pending league approval and "according to multiple sources." The guys narrating the draft react to each pick not knowing if a certain player will play for the team that chose him. They then react to each trade rumor and then react again when a proposed trade is supposedly agreed upon. After that, they are forced to react when a team is selecting someone with a pick involved in a previous proposed trade! It is cuckoo.

Some of the action from last night was actually fun. The "proposed" Jrue Holiday trade was exciting news even though we had to listen to everyone talk about how Noel would fit with Anthony Davis and then ten minutes later he was no longer a Pelican. Overall, the NBA draft is such a poor product for so many reasons and it's disappointing.


DAN:
I have a brilliant idea! What if, instead of putting on the hat of the team that drafted you, each player had to dunk a basketball with its new team's logo on it. Make the hoop a bit shorter, since the guys are in suits, and have them dunk over a stuffed animal of their new team's biggest rival. The photos of exceedingly tall men in suits dunking over large teddy bears would be amazing!

Final thought, I can't read the sentence "And then ten minutes later [Noel] was no longer a Pelican" without chuckling. Sure, they were the Hornets, but somehow a hornet is at least a little bit threatening of an animal. Pelicans are one step above storks and storks deliver babies. I'm not getting over this.

[If you missed Part one - A dull affair with Real consequence]

NBA Draft 2013: A dull affair w/ Real consequence - Part one

NBA Draft 2013: A dull affair w/ Real consequence - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (6-24-13)



TODD:
Everyone loves the NFL draft; it is an EVENT. The same cannot be said for its professional basketball counterpart. The NBA draft has no zeal, no luster, no...excitement. This happens for many different reasons. Mainly, people don't care as much about the NBA as they do professional football. More fans equals more eyes. But there are other reasons the two drafts are not peers. And the whole thing is counter intuitive; the NBA draft should really be the bigger deal.

There are exponentially fewer players on a basketball roster; thus, one highly drafted player will/should have much more impact on his new team than one, lone footballer. This is simple math, as well as how the sports operate. Unless you're drafting a top flight quarterback, one football pick won't reap huge dividends. It is about roster building, team dynamics, coaching philosophy, etc, etc. However, one basketball player can make all the difference. In this year's NBA Finals, each team was led by a studly, number one overall draft pick: the Spurs in Tim Duncan and the Heat in LeBron James. A single pick can literally turn a franchise around! So then why, if a single player can turn around the hopes and future of an entire franchise, is the NBA draft such a bummer?

The answer lies in who gets drafted. NFL drafts feature seasoned, famous amateurs getting taken through round two and often later. Big name quarterbacks and skill position players still generate interest in the middle and later rounds. These are guys we've seen mature and develop on and off the field for at least three years in college. Compare that to basketball prospects. The top guys are, more often than not, freshmen one-and-dones. They are certainly the most talented players, but we don't know them; their games are raw and under-developed; we watched them for one semester essentially. If they played for a certain university, we might hate them (cough cough Duke). Otherwise, they mean nothing to us; a hired gun set to play a season and bail for greener pastures. These are the men (boys?) that make up the NBA draft. So why should we pay attention?

There is another reason the draft stinks, along those same lines. These guys are not ready. They've only played one season above high school competition. And even the sophomores and juniors that come out are usually not ready to compete at the NBA level. The NBDL is not a minor leagues for the NBA. It might be awesome if it were, but the league is not setup to support such a proposition. So instead of a 19 year old starting off in the d-league, they are thrown into the big time and do not have the bodies nor the experience to play up to their potential. Thus, those top talents put up middling statistics or, even worse, barely get to play. So why watch them get drafted?

With the NBA draft this week, on Thursday, who will go number one? But, more importantly, why should we care?


DAN:
The NBA draft should be the bigger deal, logically, as compared to its NFL counterpart, except it 100% isn't! And you missed the biggest reason entirely. I'm stunned really. First off, the NBA draft was once cooler and more fun than any other draft around. The top two guys were almost guaranteed to be stars in the NBA the following season, but as you noted, with the best players leaving college after one year, fewer and fewer are ready for the NBA on day one.

The SINGLE biggest reason the NBA draft stinks like dirty socks is the draft lottery. I understand the logic behind holding the lottery for the top three picks, it helps curb tanking down the stretch of the regular season. But it hasn't prevented tanking. It just smoothed it out over a larger swath of crappy teams. The NFL is amazing and sells hope for its crappy franchises because every single fan knows that if your team has an awful season, then you are getting a top ten pick. A top ten pick in the NFL is equivalent to a top three pick in the NBA, since rosters are smaller and depth is much less. But in the NBA, if you are the worst team in the league you might get the fourth pick or you might get the first pick. That could be the difference between LeBron James (1st pick in 2003) or a solid role player like Lamar Odom (4th pick in 1999). One is franchise altering, the other is a just a nice pick up. You are not guaranteed the top pick, and as a fan this sucks the life out of you. Hope is not nearly as strong and what has ultimately happened is that the NBA Draft Lottery is actually a bigger deal than the NBA Draft itself!

The other reason the draft stinks is because no one stays in college any more. You mentioned this, but weren't nearly angry enough. The NBA fan who is only a casual college fan, like myself, doesn't know anyone outside the top five of the NBA draft. In the NFL, where players are in college for two or three seasons at least, even casual fans get to know the top guys. Players can transcend this issue, but overall they haven't. They've actually perpetuated it and in recent years have completely killed the buzz surrounding the NBA draft! Super star college players like Adam Morrison from Gonzaga have stunk it up in the NBA. He was a rarity and played a few years in college, we all got to know him and his success, and then bam, he stinks. And the top players who are 'great' enough to leave after one year; they haven't been physically ready and got hurt, a la Greg Oden. Who can we trust to succeed?

A star will be a star. Kevin Durant was a star from day one in the NBA. But the majority of players are not Kevin Durant and need more time in college to mature their game and grow a national audience for themselves as a product. When nearly every superstar in the NBA was drafted in the top three to five, you'd think at least the first half hour of the draft would be fun to watch. You would be wrong.


TODD:
Yeah, I agree the lottery is hogwash. It does not prevent tanking in the least. We only escaped that fate this season because there was no college player worth tanking for. Watch out next year though. If Andrew Wiggins has himself the freshman season everyone is expecting, there will be tanking galore! He's the best high school player since LeBron and it's not even close. The race for last might be more exciting next May then the race for the final playoff spots.

Is the NBA draft fixable for its audience though?

[Part two - Repairs and Reactions]

Where has all the Madness Gone? - March Madness Part 2

Where has all the Madness Gone? - March Madness Part 2
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (3-8-13)

[Part One]

DAN:

Let's see how your Final Four stacks up against my own from January. I will say, I may have jumped the gun a bit on my picks, but there's no going back now! Here they are:

Todd's Final Four - Missouri, Michigan, Ohio State, Syracuse
Dan's Final Four - Duke, Texas, NC State, Syracuse

I have a feeling we both may have missed on Indiana. I also enjoyed listening to Colin Cowherd talk about how overrated the Big 10 is this year. They so are! He made a strong case for St. Louis and Gonzaga as dark horse picks as well, which I love. I'm sticking by my predictions though. Never bet against Duke.

I can't help but feel much of the drama is sucked out of the tournament this season though. Where is the hype? What happened to the anxiety surrounding bubble teams? This years tournament crop is being shunned by ESPN and the like. What gives?

I want so badly to love March Madness, but its getting harder and harder each year as hardly any of the best players from last year are still around to watch. I'm not knocking them for hitting up the NBA, but damn has it hurt the casual fan here. My Boston University Terriers (Go BU! BC Sucks!) barely sniff the tournament, let alone win anything and your Virginia Tech Hokies get their bubble burst annually it seems. Where do we go from here? I want to get excited about it again!

TODD:

I hate listening to Colin Cowherd because everything he says is simply for the sound bite. There's no logic or sense in his words. Really, the Big 10 is overrated? Michigan is undefeated against teams out of their conference this year. Indiana only has one loss to non-Big 10 schools. Illinois and Minnesota were flying high before their Big 10 schedule kicked in; they each have only one out-of-conference loss and are now getting beaten up by their Big 10 peers. This conference probably has seven of the top 30 schools in the country.

And he likes St. Louis and Gonzaga as dark horse teams?? St. Louis garnered 675 votes in the AP poll this week (reported by Sports Illustrated), meaning they are ranked as the 16th best team in the country, AKA a 5 seed in the NCAA Tournament. If they lost in the first round of the Big Dance, it would be an UPSET! And Gonzaga? Is he serious?? Gonzaga is number one in the nation right now! They are going to get a one seed if everything stays like it is. A ONE SEED!

For the uninitiated, i.e. people who listen to Colin Cowherd, a one seed is favored to make the Final Four. If they do not, someone upset them!

A dark horse team? Really, Colin? Nice picks. My sleeper is Florida; they're way down at 11th this week in the national rankings.

As for your concern about the drama being gone, it really has a lot to do with four-year players being non-existent but also that everyone on top keeps losing this season. The perennial powers are still playing very well (Indiana, Michigan State, the aforementioned Duke) but the elite school (singular) doesn't exist. There is no one for other teams to target on their schedule. No one is running away with the season. No school is separating themselves from the rest of the country to make a huge storyline. Everyone at the top is just kind of playing reasonably well, ho hum. The good thing is that this should make for a wide open and exciting March Madness.

Really the only way to get back to what you once had, where you can be excited about seeing certain players and knowing rosters around the country is to play a simple game: Get to know your Freshmen.

There are a ton of amazing freshmen this season: Marcus Smart, Ben McLemore, Shabazz Muhammad are just a couple that pop into my mind. The game has swung young, kind of like the NBA, since one is a cause of the other. Huge college basketball fans these days follow high school recruiting and Rivals rankings of incoming freshmen. Rather than perusing last year's All-Conference teams to find out who will be good for an upcoming season, it is time to thumb through lists of the best recruiting classes. That is where the game has gone.

DAN:

Colin Cowherd is tremendous and a great prognosticator. Perhaps his excellence at predicting games and outcomes is due in part to his sleepers actually being top teams to begin with, just ones we're talking about a bit less than the others. But his record stands and he is pretty awesome at making picks. Hold your tongue when St. Louis faces the Zags in the Sweet Sixteen. And what makes him great IS that he's polarizing, says what no one wants to hear, and yells at idiots for over played opinions. I could go all day.

Back to the game at hand. What you're saying is that college basketball is becoming more and more like college football. This is definitely a good thing for its overall success and popularity. Getting people interested in recruiting classes and high school standouts is a positive if it works. I'm calling BS. Football is leaps and bounds ahead of basketball in popularity and interest. The NFL draft is amazing to follow even if the show is lackluster. And this all trickles down into college and National Signing Day being a huge deal. I don't know any of those guys, but I now know which teams are on the up and up in the sport. The problem for college basketball starts with the NBA. The NBA draft stinks. It is god awful! Before it even starts you know basically who the top five picks are, and beyond that who cares. Its just a bunch of complimentary players or bench guys. Teams are smaller and its a star driven league. All the stars are in the top five, top ten max in the draft. If I don't care about the draft, then why do I care about college basketball or its equivalent to National Signing Day? I don't, and its hard to imagine a situation where I do care.

The NBA is putting on a great product right now and I think March Madness will be interesting. But as an outsider to the college game, I see no way I garner any interest in a tournament team outside of my Alma-mater. Yes, yes, I can play the simple game of getting to know my freshmen. But that's what the NCAA tournament use to be for. Now they want me to watch regular season college basketball. Not happening. Sorry.

TODD:

The last thing I'll say on Cowherd, because he deserves even less time than we're giving him right now, is that if St. Louis and Gonzaga do meet in the Sweet Sixteen, it won't even be that surprising! They are both top 20 teams! Maybe he just doesn't understand what "sleeper" means.

You're right about the NBA draft. But it seems to me that should help aid your frustrations, not exacerbate them. Only the top five or so guys matter because it is a star driven league, sure. But 80% of those top five guys might be freshmen this season. It is even more paramount that you follow signing day and recruiting classes in basketball because one guy can shift an entire team's fortunes. That usually is not the case in football. So by seeing who nabs the top recruits, you'll have a pretty good idea of what teams might make a leap into contention during the season, and also have an eye on who will go near the top of the NBA draft. The turnaround on that information in football takes two or three years wherein basketball it all happens in one season! This should make it all easier and more exciting to follow. You just have a mental block against college basketball. That's on you. Don't blame the game!

As for the Big Dance, its always exciting just because of the built-in drama. Whether you know any players involved or not, the games are heart-pounding and you learn about stars (both freshmen and small-school seniors) during the tournament games. I guess your real problem is around this time, early March, where the tournament hasn't begun yet but you know nothing about the national teams and cannot dutifully fill out your bracket with any semblance of first hand knowledge. Sucker! This, I am sorry to say, is again, on you. Good luck with your bracket though.  That was sarcasm, just to be clear.

[Part One if you missed it]

The Madness of March is Here! Or is it? - Part One

The Madness of March is Here! Or is it? - Part One
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (3-4-13)

TODD:

This has been one of the most wild college basketball seasons in my adult life. Top five teams are getting bounced week after week; the rankings have almost become irrelevant or added encouragement for the underdog, depending on how you look at it.

No team is safe with multiple schools having already lost as the number one team in the nation. This would ordinarily spell trouble for fans trying to predict playoff advancement. If even the best teams are constantly falling, who can you rely on?

However, when it comes to March Madness, where upsets are routine and unpredictability is always predictable, this may be to our advantage. When is a better time to ride the top teams than when the public (i.e. stupid squares who lose lots of money all the time in anything they bet) is going to be going hard against them?

With all that being said, which type of Big Dance do you prefer: the upsets straight through, leaving everyone's bracket in shambles or seeing the "best" teams advance through to the Final Four?

DAN:

My favorite type of Big Dance is the one where my picks are right and I chose the champion correctly. That's only happened three times. I picked UConn, North Carolina and Duke correctly over the last decade. Go me! I know, all heavy favorites or top two seeds in the years they won. And if I'm being totally honest, I've chosen the champion correctly three times but definitely have NEVER gotten the majority of my picks correct. I've picked tons of upsets and I've picked next to none. No matter which way I go, I'm rarely over 50% and its because of exactly what you noted. Putting anything over fifty bucks on the tourney is nuts because you'll probably lose that money. Go play video poker instead. Vegas!

As for your question, I'd much rather see the top seeds advance. I like two number one's in the Final Four, a two or three and then one surprise team ranked six to eight. Balance. Then we get exciting games in the later rounds as well as some "Cinderella" drama and the reality that the rankings are not great and we're left with what we expected. Even three number one's in the Final Four is good, but anything less than two and you lost me a round or so ago. I know little to nothing about the Texas A&M's or Louisiana Lafayette's of the world and have no desire to actually watch them play basketball.

My entire March Madness experience hinges on the picks I've made. The upsets should stay in the first weekend and after that I'm all for chalk. It's hard for me, because the tournament has really lost its luster over the last five plus years. All the best college players are one and done to the NBA, so consequently I know no one. I use to know guys from the year before, watching them play in March Madness, but now anyone worth caring about leaves. It makes it tough to care, unless you enjoy following the sport during the regular season. I know you do, so I'm sure you have an opposing view. If not then just give me some picks! I made my Final Four selections back during the first week of January. What do you think now?

TODD:

Even though no one wants to admit it, I think most of America agrees with you. People care about their brackets and upsets in the first or second round. After that, they want the top seeds advancing. The television ratings back this up. The years when George Mason and VCU went way farther than anyone anticipated, the viewership was down for those games. Buzzer beaters are nice in the round of 32. But in the Elite Eight, Americans want the best competing.

As for my tournament outlook, I'm really high on the SEC this year and really low on the ACC. The SEC is pretty awful after their top three teams but I think both Florida and Missouri are awesome and Kentucky can still make waves. I could see either Florida or Mizzou making the Final Four, Missouri's current struggles not withstanding.

The ACC, on the other hand, has a number of top teams but I have little confidence in them. NC State and North Carolina have already shown their true colors; they simply are not as good as we anticipated coming into the year. The opposite can be said about Miami but I would not feel good about backing them for a long tournament run; nor Duke for that matter. Duke always scares me since they can lose to anyone if their shots are not falling.

Outside of those two conferences, the stories are all in the Big 10. As many as five different Big 10 schools are good enough to make the Final Four (Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Minnesota) and I wouldn't be surprised if two of the final four came from that conference.

But enough explaining myself. I know people only care about picks and when picks are wrong so here goes:

The Final Four will consist of Missouri, Michigan, Ohio State and Syracuse.

[Part 2 - Picks, Colin Cowherd and more Madness]