2023-24 MAC & CBB Season

[Let'sGoZips94]

Who was asking about this game getting moved?

 

 

[csims0917]

Pretty much everyone. Very happy it got moved to Friday there are way less games that day 

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Conference schedules are more important than ever before. Akron is playing 20 games this year against absolute crap. The mid majors need to figure that out and either all commit to having winning programs, or shuffle the deck to create stronger mid major conferences (i.e. A10, Mountain West, etc.)

That's why I cheer for the MAC, excluding Kent, to do well OOC. Akron plays 18 MAC games and only 1-2 of those games the committee will look at and think that's a good win. Meanwhile, you play 16 Q3 or Q4 games and any of those that you lose will look like a black eye on your resume. Statistically if you play enough cupcake games, you will lose 1-2 of them. As was the case against Miami.

 

Edit: Also, I'm an Akron fan, but am also a fan of college basketball as a whole. It's a lot more fun to watch Akron basketball games when the games actually matter. Based off attendance figures at games when a good Toledo or UB comes to town, it seems Joe Akron would agree.

Edited February 8, 2024 by kreed5120

[GP1]

I have a question. Last night I noticed Duke, a team I haven't watched 10 minutes of all season, was ranked #9 and all I could think after watching them for two hours was, they are the worst Top 10 Duke team I've ever seen. Question: Is college basketball really this watered down at the top?

[csims0917]

It 100% is. The g league ignite caused a lot of prospects to skip college completely. The gap between the top 25 and the rest of the field is way smaller than the past. It’ll create a lot of upsets but overall the talent pool has shrunk 

[Let'sGoZips94]

There is little incentive for the cream of the crop high school talent to play CBB. There hasn't been for a long time. The NCAA, staying true to their anti-player crooked selves, tried to corner players into playing CBB with the NBA's 1 year requirement rule. That rule worked for as long as there weren't other options. Once the Euro leagues started to get big and pay real money, more talent went overseas. Then the G League grew to combat the international departures, and now the G League is a direct competitor for talent with the NCAA. 

 

The way college basketball and football are going, the only solution is going to be replacing scholarships with contracts that involve direct payment from the schools themselves. 

[LZIp]

Are there really a lot of top talent skipping college for overseas or Ignite?? I've heard of occasional player here and there, but to my knowledge hasn't been a growing theme.

Regardless - parity is good for any sport in my opinion, so I'm not going to complain about CBB. Football on the other hand has serious issues, and it sucks because CFB is the sport i enjoy the most.

[kreed5120]

I also think NIL is a factor. You used to see a school like Kentucky have a super team of freshmen. Now those McDonalds All-Americans are more spread out. Sure Kentucky can afford to land a couple top recruits, but they can't afford to pay a full team of them. A school like Maryland, Iowa, etc can sneak in and outbid them if they view that player as a star player, but Kentucky views them as a 4th or 5th option.

 

Edit: I would add in the transfer portal exploding is another thing. Basketball is very much a team sport. There is value in players playing with one another for years to develop chemistry. It's not like baseball where you can easily plug and play.

Edited February 13, 2024 by kreed5120

[zippy5]

32 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Are there really a lot of top talent skipping college for overseas or Ignite?? I've heard of occasional player here and there, but to my knowledge hasn't been a growing theme.

Regardless - parity is good for any sport in my opinion, so I'm not going to complain about CBB. Football on the other hand has serious issues, and it sucks because CFB is the sport i enjoy the most.

It's a very immaterial number 

[Reslife4Life]

The G League Ignite SUCK. From my POV I believe it is just a bunch of overhyped HS players who just want to play for themselves. Before last night, they had a record of 1-18. I do think that the G League in general is a good option if players have the potential to be 1 and done, but the way the Ignite is  built just isn't the way to go. They try and promise these players that they will all the be star player on the team just like HS, but no one learns how to play a role and play as a team

Edited February 13, 2024 by Reslife4Life

[GP1]

https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll

 

Kansas is ranked #6. They are in 5th place in the Big 12. Are any voters paying attention?

[Illini Zip]

 

 

[Zippy87]

13 hours ago, LZIp said:

Are there really a lot of top talent skipping college for overseas or Ignite?? I've heard of occasional player here and there, but to my knowledge hasn't been a growing theme.

Regardless - parity is good for any sport in my opinion, so I'm not going to complain about CBB. Football on the other hand has serious issues, and it sucks because CFB is the sport i enjoy the most.

 

Of the top ten projected picks in NBA.com's latest mock draft, 50% are college players. It was 50% in the 2023 Draft as well.

 

Looking at the drafts from 2021-2023, the G League Ignite have had 10 players drafted and 2 others undrafted who eventually signed NBA contracts. 

 

It's definitely changed the landscape since the Ignite started in 2020.

 

[kreed5120]

10 hours ago, Zippy87 said:

 

Of the top ten projected picks in NBA.com's latest mock draft, 50% are college players. It was 50% in the 2023 Draft as well.

 

Looking at the drafts from 2021-2023, the G League Ignite have had 10 players drafted and 2 others undrafted who eventually signed NBA contracts. 

 

It's definitely changed the landscape since the Ignite started in 2020.

 

Those players playing overseas aren't guys who would have been playing in college basketball 10, 20, 30 years ago. European born players have generally always played overseas before coming to the NBA. Look at Dirk, Tony Parker, Gasol brothers, etc. The difference now is that in the last 10-15 years the sport has grown a ton there so now they're producing more high caliber players.

 

What you should be looking at is which Americans are going overseas or joining the G League. Those would be the players that are being taken away from the college game. 

 

In my previous post I didn't mention how much the game has globalized in recent times. We have more people playing basketball than ever. That could also be a factor in why top teams don't look as dominant. Mid-tier teams have a much larger pool of players to recruit and the scraps they settle for are better than the player they settled for 20-30 years ago. It could also be why we've recently seen a 16 seed beat a 1.

Edited February 14, 2024 by kreed5120

[GP1]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

 That could also be a factor in why top teams don't look as dominant. Mid-tier teams have a much larger pool of players to recruit and the scraps they settle for are better than the player they settled for 20-30 years ago. It could also be why we've recently seen a 16 seed beat a 1.

I think mediocrity is the new excellence. In my opinion teams aren't as dominant because of a lack of cohesion within programs as a result of the transfer portal. 

 

I'm not sure the mid tier teams are getting better guys than 20 years ago. Years ago, mid tier programs like Wake Forest had Chris Paul and Tim Duncan playing for them. Now their guard is a Central Michigan transfer in Boopie Miller and their center is a Gonzaga transfer Efton Reid. They have traded Hall of Fame players for guys who you scratch your head when you hear their name. 

 

College sports will become generally less popular as dominant teams/players go away and they are replaced by more  average players/teams.  Average is not excellence. People like excellence because it's predictable. It gives us something to love or hate. I'm not even certain making college sports less popular is something that can change even as we turn the country into a bunch of gambling degenerates.

 

An example would be the NBA of the 1970s. It was full of parity and was unpopular. Magic and Bird hit the NBA in the 1980s and for ten years, one or both was in the NBA finals. It's popularity grew a great deal. 

Edited February 14, 2024 by GP1

[LZIp]

27 minutes ago, GP1 said:

I think mediocrity is the new excellence. In my opinion teams aren't as dominant because of a lack of cohesion within programs as a result of the transfer portal. 

 

I'm not sure the mid tier teams are getting better guys than 20 years ago. Years ago, mid tier programs like Wake Forest had Chris Paul and Tim Duncan playing for them. Now their guard is a Central Michigan transfer in Boopie Miller and their center is a Gonzaga transfer Efton Reid. They have traded Hall of Fame players for guys who you scratch your head when you hear their name. 

 

College sports will become generally less popular as dominant teams/players go away and they are replaced by more  average players/teams.  Average is not excellence. People like excellence because it's predictable. It gives us something to love or hate. I'm not even certain making college sports less popular is something that can change even as we turn the country into a bunch of gambling degenerates.

 

An example would be the NBA of the 1970s. It was full of parity and was unpopular. Magic and Bird hit the NBA in the 1980s and for ten years, one or both was in the NBA finals. It's popularity grew a great deal. 

Sounds like you like the current state of college football then. Incredibly to heavy.

[GP1]

36 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Sounds like you like the current state of college football then. Incredibly to heavy.

I'm probably in the minority, but I am one of the people who likes the parity.  I do like college football and I still like going to games even though the average length of games is starting to become intolerable. 

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, GP1 said:

I think mediocrity is the new excellence. In my opinion teams aren't as dominant because of a lack of cohesion within programs as a result of the transfer portal. 

 

I'm not sure the mid tier teams are getting better guys than 20 years ago. Years ago, mid tier programs like Wake Forest had Chris Paul and Tim Duncan playing for them. Now their guard is a Central Michigan transfer in Boopie Miller and their center is a Gonzaga transfer Efton Reid. They have traded Hall of Fame players for guys who you scratch your head when you hear their name. 

 

College sports will become generally less popular as dominant teams/players go away and they are replaced by more  average players/teams.  Average is not excellence. People like excellence because it's predictable. It gives us something to love or hate. I'm not even certain making college sports less popular is something that can change even as we turn the country into a bunch of gambling degenerates.

 

An example would be the NBA of the 1970s. It was full of parity and was unpopular. Magic and Bird hit the NBA in the 1980s and for ten years, one or both was in the NBA finals. It's popularity grew a great deal. 

Teams at or near the top of college basketball can change. Florida was dominant for a few years when they were getting NBA players. OSU had their run. UMass had theirs. That has never changed.

 

I'm not even referring to the best of the best players. A basketball team is made up of more than just one player. Emoni Bates was drafted by the Cavaliers and we saw how badly EMU was last year. I'm saying the 500th best player today in college basketball is vastly better than what it was 20-30 years ago as the player pool is exponentially larger. There are many more competent players that teams can fill out a roster with.

 

Go back to the Wooden days at UCLA. A big reason why they were so dominant is the talent pool surrounding them was very bad. It has been a similar case in the women's game. Only just now in the women's game are you seeing more and more teams compile competitive rosters.

 

Edit: Also, I mentioned cohesion in my prior post as a factor. Both can be true. The teams at the top don't have as much chemistry as they used to and the teams under them have more complete rosters therefore they can't simply dominant on talent alone.

Edited February 14, 2024 by kreed5120

[clarkwgriswold]

It sounds like Lamont Paris, a former UA KD assistant and current South Carolina head coach, is in the rumor mill for the OSU job.

[dirtyolcrowe]

Groce is long shot candidate for the OSU gig but is a candidate for the trickle down theory.  
 

Example if Sean Miller leaves Xavier, etc….or Wes Miller leaves Cincy, etc….

Edited February 14, 2024 by dirtyolcrowe

[clarkwgriswold]

Conversation in the workplace today-

Co-worker:  "So, who do you think gets the OSU job?"

Clarkie:  "Hmmmm, Oats?  Miller?  Paris?  Kelsey?"

Co-worker:  "What about Shaka Smart?"

Clarkie:  "**** Shaka Smart that arrogant little ******** **********!"

 

I'm still having issues.

Edited February 14, 2024 by clarkwgriswold

[NWAkron]

8 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

Conversation in the workplace today-

Co-worker:  "So, who do you think gets the OSU job?"

Clarkie:  "Hmmmm, Oats?  Miller?  Paris?  Kelsey?"

Co-worker:  "What about Shaka Smart?"

Clarkie:  "**** Shaka Smart that arrogant little ******** **********!"

 

I'm still having issues.

Tim O'Shea?

[Captain Kangaroo]

3 hours ago, clarkwgriswold said:

It sounds like Lamont Paris, a former UA KD assistant and current South Carolina head coach, is in the rumor mill for the OSU job.

I’m hearing Joe Moorhead.

[zipsrule]

Kent drilled Northern, 85-47.

[zipsrule]

BG down by 9 at the half at Eastern.