Why College Basketball is Awful to Watch

Sadly, I am kind of excited about the Maui Invitational. Perhaps because I have a vested interest in two team: The University of Memphis and The University of Tennessee.  As I often state repeatedly, if I had not gone to Division I basket schools, I would have no interest in college basketball.  More indicative of my interest in the preeminent college basketball tournament for the Thanksgiving break, however, is the lack of NBA action.  College basketball is such an inferior product to the NBA that it frustrates me.  There are a lot of contributing factors that lead to the gigantic gap between the NBA and the NCAA.  Unfortunately, many of college basketballs most hampering factors are self-inflicted and easily remedied.

Top Ten College Basketball Rule Changes that would make college basketball better:

10.  Offensive Goal Tending
This is a European rule that I actually really like and would like the NCAA and the NBA to adopt.  Allowing offensive players to touch ball while it's on the rim or back board (but in the cylinder) encourages offensive players to go after rebounds and defensive players to box out.  You also get a lot more big dunks off of misses and put back than under current rules.

9.  Jump balls
Throw it up and make them jump for it like men.  The possession arrow is ridiculous.

8. Automatic Bids
The top teams in the country need to make the tournament.  Watching Holy Cross get the crap kicked out of them every single year is not entertaining.  Expand the the rankings to 68 (not 25) and keep a running track of who is in and out.  The selection committee is ridiculous and gets wrong every year partly because of automatic qualifiers.  There are way too many teams that compete in "Division I" that should not be "Division I " teams."

7. Put a freaking Circle in the Paint/Charges
One of the hardest things to watch in NCAA is terrible charge calls.  If there was a circle in the paint (an area below the rim where charges could not be called) there would be more no calls where appropriate and less bad calls.  Taking a charge is a bad defensive players cop out for not moving his feet.

6. My Grandma Could Make Three Pointers
Move the line to NBA distance.  A long three pointer expands the court and loosens play.  Currently too many players play for the 3 and take bad shot.  Moving perimeter players out expands the lanes to drive, pass, and post up opportunities.

5. 35 Second Shot Clock
The game is so freakin' slow.  So many times I watch games where the team that playing passes the ball out around the three point line for 20 seconds before they do anything to try and score.  A lower shot clock would increase scoring make the game more exciting.


4. Halves, Not Quarters
Switching the quarters feeds into the argument that their should be a better foul system.  Quarter also encourage close games.  Quarters allow for breaks in momentum.  If a team gets rolling in the NCAA a game can be over before second half.


3. Fouls: 1and 1 is Stupid
1 and 1 is beyond dumb.  Allow 5 fouls per quarter and then move on to two shots.  Two shots encourages offenses to be aggressive and defenses to be smart.  Also, individual players six personal fouls before disqualification would keep the best players in the game .

2. Zone Defenses
Penn St. v. Wisconsin 2011....... it's the only argument I need.

1. Time outs/ In-bounding
Games could so much more competitive at the end.  The NBA has this right in so many ways.  Advance the ball after a time out.  If you manage time outs well, you always have a shot at the end of an NBA game.  But the overextended shot clock combined with in-bounding from the baseline every time make runs at the end of a game nearly impossible.  Provide an opportunity for for great players to make great plays and there will be a better product.

Of course this list is not exhaustive.  And it only reflects my dislikes of the "RULES" of college basketball.  There are numerous things that I really hate about college ball outside of bad rules, but maybe that's another rant.

NBA Lockout

I just got done reading the complaint filed by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) against the NBA. (Butler v. NBA, it can be found here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/NBA.pdf ) The complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act.  The Sherman Act is the federal anti-trust act.  Essentially, bargaining can take place between the NBA and the NBPA as long both sides remain as parts of their respective unions.  However, the when one side of the collective unit decides to decertify (in this case the players) there is no longer a collective bargaining situation.  In essence, the NBA owners are now colluding and price fixing professional basketball (at least this is what is alleged by the NBPA in their complaint). 


The owners will likely defend based on the non-statutory labor exemption.  The labor exemption is based on a policy that favors collective bargaining and gives it preference over the antitrust laws.  Any union-management agreement that is a product of good faith negotiation will receive protection from antitrust laws.


Now, I could go into whether the lawsuit will succeed and the merits of the case.  Have the owners negotiated in good faith?  Have the players been realistic in forcing the NBA to operate at a loss?   Has Billy Hunter really screwed the pooch with his negotiating (which has had many gaffs to date)?  Instead, I would like to examine if the lawsuit succeeds.  What type of product will the NBA produce in the long run, if no CBA exists and the players are put out into the open market to fend for themselves and owners are truly trying to maximize their profits.  


The NBA without a CBA will look drastically different from today's NBA.  Here is my theorized order of events that would occur if the doomsday scenario of happened - resuming professional basketball without a CBA.
1. Individual player salaries will soar
2. Large market teams will drive the players salaries higher
3. Small market teams will no longer exist
4. Less major league basketball players
5. Worse overall product and experience


INDIVIDUAL PLAYER SALARIES WILL SOAR & LARGE MARKET TEAMS WILL DRIVE THE PLAYERS SALARIES HIGHER
The first two factors of a league with a CBA are intrinsically tied together.  Large market teams (teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Mavs, Bulls, Celtics, and Clippers) can make money regardless of the success of their team because of the market they are located in.  These teams operate at a profit even if they are bad (like the Knicks), and they operate at a huge profit if they are successful (like the Lakers).  These teams will be able to control the market of player talent.  Without a salary cap, these teams will simply bid higher and higher driving the salaries of major league players through the roof.  


SMALL MARKET TEAMS WILL NO LONGER EXIST
Because of the large market driven league, you can cut the number of major league teams in half.  Approximately half of the NBA teams operate at a loss or just barely break even.  These teams include my beloved Orlando Magic and Memphis Grizzlies.  Half of NBA organizations cannot turn a profit under the current CBA simply based the market where they are located.   If these small market teams can't make a profit under a CBA, they are definitely not going to turn a profit in an open market.  Rational owners will not operate at a loss.  Small market teams will shut down because they cannot make money given the natural supremacy of large market teams.


LESS MAJOR LEAGUE BASKETBALL PLAYERS
With half of the NBA gone around 200 of the 450 members of the NBPA are out of a job.  These are mainly going to be minor and marginal players.  No longer will minor players be able to make it in the new large market Super League.  This is the most perplexing factor of the current CBA negotiations.  If all the players who will be driven out of professional basketball (in the NBA at least) were aware that desertification would lead to this, they would not support it.


WORSE OVERALL PRODUCT AND EXPERIENCE
Having a national basketball league that includes all large and small market teams is better for an overall basketball product than the creation of a large market Super League.  Alienating millions of fans be removing their pro teams will only hurt the Super League.  I am such an avid fan because I grew up in a small NBA market.  When you make the product so inaccessible to so many people, the product will generally suffer.   The NFL succeeds in part because of significant competitive balance throughout the league.  Every year multiple teams come out of nowhere to be competitive in the NFL.  The NBA has only had 9 champions since 1980 (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, Mavs, Miami, Detroit, San Antonio, Philly).  San Antonio and Detroit are the only true small markets and they only account for 6 of those championships.  Fans have grown tired of seeing the same teams compete year in and year out.  Give us some diversity.  Not having a CBA will only promote large market exploitation.


Of course, all of this is a doomsday scenario prognostication.  I hope none of it comes true.  If the league has competitive balance, then the league will flourish.  Creating super teams that are completely player centric  will be the downfall of the NBA.  Hopefully, it will not come to that.