Is the NBA good for college basketball?
December 19, 2006 12:58 am by JuiceMost of us are college basketball fans first, and NBA fans second. That is, we’ll watch the playoffs and the Finals when they roll around, but from January through March, college basketball is basketball.
But the NBA overshadows much of college ball — it’s the ultimate stage to which most college players aspire. At the same time, many fans view it distastefully, as an overly-commercial game with no heart that sucks up the great college players far too early. How does the NBA affect the college game? Is it really so bad? Let’s break it down.
Minus: Good players leave early
This is the most obvious and often-cited complaint about the NBA. The best college players declare for the NBA after a few seasons at best. Of course, you can’t fault them: millions of dollars in pay and endorsements are always a convincing argument. But for fans, the transition induces pain, when you find out that one of your favorite players has finally decided to declare, or fatalism, when you know a player is going to head to the NBA early the minute he steps on the court, and you start watching him like he’s a dead man dribbling.
Sometimes, of course, you get what you wanted anyway (Carmelo Anthony), but far more often you’re left wondering just how good your team could be if only he were still around the next season (Caron Butler, countless others). That’s pain, and frustration. The churn of good players means that your team is constantly in rebuilding mode.
Minus: Showboating
We’ve all seen it: the talented player, destined for the NBA, determined to improve his draft chances by… being a ball hog, going for the showy play rather than the good one, and playing lackadaisically when he knows he’s not in the spotlight. In short, doing everything that you hate about the NBA regular season. Ben Gordon in the 2004 championship game comes to mind, but there are plenty of other examples. The purity of college basketball derives from the notion that the team matters more than the individual (which is partly why we are able to remain sane while rooting for a rotating cast of characters a la Minus #1 above). There’s no pay, so the only reward, theoretically, is a championship, which encourages better team play and more beautiful basketball.
Sounds great. Except that the expectation of future rewards — NBA contracts — is so significant that, in some players, it’s the most important factor. The end result: ugly, ugly games that leave a bad taste in your mouth. (Remember, many of these players aren’t even good enough to play in the NBA, much less be superstars. So they do a far worse job of doing cool stuff on their own.)
At this point, it’s looking hard to argue for the NBA at all. But there are some positives, and I think they actually outweigh the negatives.
Plus: A bigger talent pool
This is a simple economic argument. NBA = riches. College = best chance at NBA. End result: any kid with half a chance of making it in college is going to want to play. More players = bigger talent pool = better overall play.
Plus: Greater parity
This is a more subtle argument, but perhaps the most important one. Mister D recently commented on how much parity there is in Division I ball. And it definitely is impressive. But why is there such parity? Consider the following argument:
If college play is all about winning championships, then the best programs should attract the best athletes, because each player supposedly wants to maximize his chance of winning a championship. In this world, you’d never see Wichita State in the Top 10; instead, you’d see (roughly) the same 10 teams in the Top 10, not only all year long, but year-in and year-out. Why doesn’t this happen?
It seems to me that the main reason is that good players want to play ball in college, and you won’t get to play much ball if you’re on a team with 11 other superstars. Now, part of the reason that good players want lots of playing time is that they love playing; it’s what they do.
However, another reason is (surprise) the NBA. If you’re a good player, and you know you have a shot at the NBA, you’ll want to attend college somewhere that will make your talents visible to NBA scouts. I’d wager that being the sixth man on a great team that makes it to the Final Four is not as lucrative (last year’s draft-record-breaking UConn squad aside) as being the first man on a good team. So the NBA encourages a natural diffusion of talent throughout the NCAA, which makes March Madness so awesome every year. The desire to showboat, as nasty as it is, ultimately strengthens the league through greater parity. It’s a crazy world.
March Madness is the heart of the college basketball experience. Thanks, NBA, for making it so good.
Categories: Commentary, Juice
6 Comments »
6 Responses to “Is the NBA good for college basketball?”
Seems like we have an interesting debate here. On the one hand, I think we both agree — more talent in the college ranks leads to more parity. Dan’l B, however, seems to think that the added talent (due to the NBA draft restriction) will lead to less parity.
We’ll see how the rest of this year (and the next few) pans out. I’d love to hear a more detailed argument from Dan’l B.
“On the one hand, I think we both agree — more talent in the college ranks leads to more parity.”
I guess one of my points is that this isn’t necessarily so — you could imagine talent clumping together (e.g. talented players want talented teammates). I’m saying that the lure of the NBA ensures that this won’t happen.
My argument is fairly straightforward. On a team like George Mason ’05-’06, there weren’t any NBA prospects (correct me if I’m wrong) yet they beat a team that sent four players to the first round in UConn. I think experience was the #1 factor in allowing Mason to compete like this, along with some of the points Juice has laid out regarding parity.
Eventually, all talent will be older by the time they enter the NBA. I’m not certain that my intuitions are correct, but it seems logical to me that college players will tend to stay longer than they would have under the old system because the NBA will tend to put more stock in a player’s performance record in college than they did through the last draft.
It is exceedingly rare for NCAA championship teams to not be populated by several future NBA draftees. The logical conclusion is that NBA talent and NCAA success have positive correlation–in both directions undoubtedly. If my conjecture that NBA prospects will stay in school for an extra year or two in some cases is true, it follows that player retention will translate to more NCAA success for schools with NBA talent. The elite will collectively separate a bit from the middle of the pack.
Dan, I think that the most important issue here is that the mid major teams have a better chemistry that develops when players have 4 years playing together. This is invaluable to a coach.
I agree completely, and what I think will happen is major teams will have a little more time together and will develop, say, 2 or 3-year chemistry instead of 1 or 2-year chemistry. Add superior physical talent to improved chemistry and the high-majors will separate from the mid-majors.
yes, the NBA is good for college ball, because without the NBA, i dont think these players would have that high of a motivation to play this great if their careers would end in college.