Why "March Madness" sucks

[BDS]

The NCAA basketball tournament is ballyhooed as one of the great sporting events on the American scene. Every office has a "pool" -- in which non-sports fans try to win money by picking winners in the 64-team brackets. As with many sports, fan interest is directly connected to this gambling. However, the tournament is actually a bore, these days. Here's why:

1) College hoop sucks. Although recent rule changes prohibit youths from entering the NBA until after their freshmen year, the NBA still grabs all the good players, and the NCAA is left with the dregs. There are no good teams left in college hoop. The only really talented players are 19-year-old freshmen, (like Greg Oden last year). And 19-year-olds just aren't that good yet, unless their names are Lebron.

2) The NCAA sucks. As an organization, the NCAA is all about making money for itself first, and its member schools second. The well-being and interests of the athletes are of little or no interest to the organization. Most NCAA rules are designed to protect the schools, often to the disadvantage of the athletes. As far as the NCAA hoop tournament is concerned, the NCAA as an organization makes BY FAR the majority of its money from this tournament (one reason I hate it). Of course the NCAA runs championships in other sports -- but only college football rivals college hoop in popularity, and the NCAA does NOT run a Division 1 college football tournament.

3) The rules are weak. In general, American sports are designed to be make money on television, but the number of time-outs is pathetic, and makes the games almost unwatchable. Also, the 3 point line is too close. What's wrong with international rules -- you know -- like everyone else in the world uses? If the NBA wants to make its own rules, fine. But for the NCAA to do so is simply unsufferable arrogance.

4) There's too much parity. I know parity is SUPPOSED to be a good thing -- but it isn't. The casual fan might remember a good team -- if Greg Oden and Mike Conley had returned for finals loser Ohio State, for example. But there are no REALLY good teams, because NBA level talent goes immediately to the NBA. Florida (which won the last two years) had two or three NBA scrub-level players. Ohio State had Oden, but he was only 19. I can barely think of one player on #1 ranked North Carolina -- and I'm a big sports fan (albeit on the West Coast).

[Adam]

As with many sports, fan interest is directly connected to this gambling.

There are probably at least two reasons for that:

1) Interactivity. It's more fun to watch a game if you're simultaneously playing a game.

2) Something at stake. For people without a hometown/alumnus connection to a particular team, there's no particular reason to care which team wins unless they have something (even if it's only bragging rights) riding on the game. Sports are generally more fun to watch when you have a reason to root for one side.

I don't really have any opinion on the other stuff. I don't follow basketball at all.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I don't follow basketball at all.

It's pretty easy to do, kinda like ADHD tennis.

[BDS]

I agree that gambling makes spectating more fun. Interest in the NFL is fueled by office pools and casual (as well as serious) gambling, too. I have no objection to this -- it's just you can gamble on any sporting event, so why not gamble on the best ones?

The NFL is a good gambling sport because it's one day a week -- you can think about your office-pool picks and then watch on that one day.

Of the American pro sports, basketball and football lend themselves to gambling because of the point spread. Baseball is more complicated (betting pays off according to odds, not a spread, and the starting pitcher is vital to the odds, so you have to pay close attention if you are going to bet). The casual better gets confused. Hockey is less complicated, but it’s still based on odds (I think, I’m not sure). Individual sports (boxing, tennis, etc.) have always been good for gambling, but are easy to “fix” (gamblers need only pay off or threaten one person, as recent scandals in tennis illustrate).

[TomJoe]

1) College hoop sucks.


Obviously you'll find many who beg to differ. For me, NBA hoops sucks, which is why I don't follow NBA basketball, either regular season or playoffs.

2) The NCAA sucks. As an organization, the NCAA is all about making money for itself first, and its member schools second.
Since the NCAA is the member schools ... the NCAA is all about making money for the 1,200 schools which comprise it. Of course, most of that money is made (and distributed) to a small number of the Division I schools.

The well-being and interests of the athletes are of little or no interest to the organization.Mostly true. Though for most athletes of the non-basketball/non-football variety, NCAA rules/mandates provide them with a means to pay for their education.

3) The rules are weak.International and NBA rules vary in a number of instances. The rules between the NBA and NCAA less so. One is, as you mentioned, the 3 point line ... which is, next year IIRC, being extended outward.

4) There's too much parity.Not really. Off the top of my head, only a handful of teams have a legitimate shot at winning the National Championship this year. They're basically the same teams who have had a legitimate shot over the last decade or so. When has a team from a non major conference won the basketball National Championship? 1986 - Univ of Louisville, Metro Conference.

I can barely think of one player on #1 ranked North Carolina -- and I'm a big sports fan (albeit on the West Coast).Not even the potential Player of the Year, Tyler Hansbrough?

[BDS]

The NCAA is the member schools, but it is also a bureaucracy, which has its own agenda and interests. Bureaucracies tend to work for the benefit of the bureaucrats – the more money the NCAA hoop tournament brings to the member schools, the more money it can siphon off into the salaries, perks, etc. of the bureaucrats. (I admit I have no current knowledge of the inner workings and motives of the NCAA bureaucracy – but this is true in general. Of course the member schools can get together and change things, if they want, but as long as the money is coming in they probably won’t want to rock the boat.)

[BDS]

One more thing about college hoop that annoys me: I hate the cult of the "coach". Nobody cares about NBA coaches -- the game belongs to the players. But the media (and even the fans) babble endlessly about college coaches. The reason is clear -- they provide the only continuity for the "program" (it's never the "team", it's the "program"). The players come and go (after one year, if they're very good), but the coaches remain. I can see admiration for football coaches (who actually call plays and have a major role in the game). But basketball coaches annoy me. Especially Pat Summit and the Tennessee men's coach (I forget his name).

I have heard of Tyler Hansbrough -- although I couldn't have spelled his name until you mentioned him, TomJoe. I haven't watched any Tournament games yet, but I was rooting for Duke (before they lost) and UCLA, because both have star Freshmen from Oregon (who I watched play in highschool). Kevin Love (UCLA) and Kyle Singler (Duke). Oregon doesn't produce THAT many hoop stars -- we have to be loyal to those we do produce. (Hmmm, NBA players Terrel Brandon, Mike Dunleavy, Damon Stoudemire, Luke Jackson (who never quite cut it in the NBA), and that's about it for the past 20 years, unless someone can remind me of someone else.).

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I'm sorry? All college players suck?

Chris Lofton. JaJuan Smith. Tyler Smith. That kid from UK. The underdog kids of WKU.

[BDS]

It's all relative, of course. But I'd say that Love (UCLA), Rose (Memphis st.) and Beasely (K. st. ) would rank in almost everyone's top 10 players in college hoop, and they're freshmen, who probably won't play next year. Do you think Durant and Oden (if he hadn't gotten hurt) would be the top players in college hoop this year? Of course they would, if they hadn't gone pro. The talent is thin.

This does create parity -- because none of the top recruits stick around, which hurts the high profile teams. A team with 5 seniors who are just below NBA-level talent has a chance to win -- because the sub-NBA-level seniors are probably as good as the NBA-talent freshmen. If 19-year-olds did stick around, they would be far better players when they were 21 or 22 than they are at 19 (their only college season).

Lofton and both Smiths are borderline NBA talents, at best.

[TomJoe]

This does create parity -- because none of the top recruits stick around, which hurts the high profile teams. A team with 5 seniors who are just below NBA-level talent has a chance to win -- because the sub-NBA-level seniors are probably as good as the NBA-talent freshmen. If 19-year-olds did stick around, they would be far better players when they were 21 or 22 than they are at 19 (their only college season).

Though, to be fair ... this isn't the fault of the NCAA, it's the fault of the NBA which had no rules about drafting kids right out of high school. MLB is similar, but kids drafted out of high school know they're going to get stuck in minor league A ball (at best) so they rarely take the money and run, and instead go to college on a full ride and develop their skills over 3 to 4 years. The NBA however just started their development league, probably because a lot of the young kids they draft bomb spectacularly. For every Kobe that is drafted in the NBA out of high school, I'd fathom to guess that there are two or three (or more?) who flame out like Kwame Brown.

The NFL has it right, sort of. You have to spend two years in college before you can go pro. I'm not sure there is any harm in drafting only from the ranks of college graduates for any of the sports, though I'm sure there are laws against it. The issue then becomes ... how much does the NCAA make off of these students without giving them monetary "compensation"?

[BDS]

I don't know if "fault" is the right word (for the NBA). I think star athletes should have a right to make as much money as they can, just like everyone else. It IS a consequence of the NBA policy that college hoop has suffered -- but why should the NBA care about that? There's less competition for the basketball dollar this way.

[Megatron]

Still, at least NCAA basketball has a fucking playoff system. You want REAL horseshit? Three words: Bowl Championship Series. :rant:

[BDS]

Still, at least NCAA basketball has a fucking playoff system. You want REAL horseshit? Three words: Bowl Championship Series. :rant:

Actually, I like the football system, although I prefer the old Bowl system before the bowl championship series. Here's what's good about it:

1) The NCAA is not in charge, and doesn't make money off of it.
2) It promotes arguments about which is the best team.
3) The old system recognized the value of conference championships (the old hoop system did, too, when there were only 16 teams).

[Megatron]

I agree with the point of conference championships. What I'd really like to see is a 3-week, 8-game playoff, in which all 8 teams are winners of their conferences. (Go down the rankings until you've got 8 teams that did so, seed them according to their AP rank)

[BDS]

I'd go along with that. The NBA and NHL (and to a lesser extent the NFL and MLB) suffer because the regular season games are mostly meaningless, since so many teams make the playoffs. The college football or basketball regular seasons would be more exciting if only the conference champion made it to the tournament.