Pac-10 programs after their freshman seasons, and John Calipari departed Memphis for the storied Kentucky Wildcats. All across the sport, there seems to be one consistent theme, and that is change. Therefore, it is difficult for me to believe that people like Joe Lunardi and Jay Bilas will be able to predict which team will win the national championship in November.There are two main problems that I see with the structure of college basketball: first, there is virtually nothing that draws people to the television or radio for a game; and second, no player stays in school long enough to provide a sense of continuity for the fans from year to year.
To begin, let’s tackle the issue of urgency in college basketball. To be honest, there is none. I will concede that this lack of meaningful games still has me writing an article, but at the same time, I don’t think many people are sitting at home on the day after New Year’s to watch a game between Minnesota and Iowa. To borrow from Gary Radnich, “Nobody cares!” As a result of the 64 (technically 65) team bracket system, it matters little if Texas or Kansas (for the sake of argument) drops a game to an out-of-conference opponent early in the season. Both the Longhorns and the Jayhawks would still be entered into the Big Dance, with only a slight adjustment to their seeding.
Perhaps part of the problem lies in the length of the season. Bud Selig and David Stern both experience this challenge in their respective sports: how to make the regular season – anywhere from 82 to 162 games long – more interesting to fans and viewers. Granted, the average schedule spans about 32 games in college hoops (minus any tournament contests), and schools already have a somewhat built-in fan-base in the current students and alumni.
Still, the majority of large crowds attend the regional rivalry games, like Cal versus Stanford or USC against UCLA. It is difficult to draw large numbers when a program starts its schedule with Murray State and Detroit, like the Golden Bears did this year. With other commitments throughout the week, it seems most people are willing to rely on a highlight provided by the late local news or even the box score in tomorrow’s paper.In each of the four major American sports (NFL, MLB, NBA and college football), there are numerous analysts who are paid to prognosticate for various media outlets. They always predict which teams will reach the playoffs (or major BCS bowl games), and while it feels like a serious undertaking, most fans hopefully know that these educated guesses cannot account for the unknowns or the intangibles.
Things like injuries to star players, locker room chemistry and differing coaching styles all factor in as the season moves forward, but none of the network broadcasters have a crystal ball for those types of things. I understand that “Bracketology” can be a fun diversion from everyday life, but for people with busy schedules, it shouldn’t matter that Weber State is slotted as a number 15 seed set to face Purdue in the Midwest Region. Plus, it is rather easy to say that Roy Williams’ Tar Heels, who have captured two of the last five National Championships, will earn a high seeding. Essentially, folks like Lunardi are trying to conjure an increased amount of interest in the sport’s regular season, and it will probably have the opposite effect.There is another reason why the popularity of college basketball is fading: the decreased number of recognizable faces on the court. Sure, the college game has generally been one in which the coach is the star of a program. Fans associate Mike Krzyzewski with the Blue Devils, Jim Calhoun with the Connecticut Huskies and Jim Boeheim with the Orangemen of Syracuse. But when Hansbrough left Chapel Hill after four full seasons and one National Championship, his exit from the college game also ushered out an era in the sport that saw kids both compete in athletics and graduate at a higher rate. Now, this is not necessarily an article about the importance of finishing one’s education, because we all know that the lure of the money in professional sports is strong. But gone are the days of Magic and Larry, in which winning a championship for your school was more important than a potentially lucrative shoe contract in the league.
This desire to jump more quickly to the NBA combined with the lack of a rule that keeps kids in college-level programs for more than one year is causing a problem for both the schools and for the sport as a whole. Of course alumni will try to keep track of the annual changes made to their alma mater’s team, but a Saint Mary’s grad won’t necessarily care as much about a freshman who is replacing a guard at West Virginia. College football requires that players be at least three years removed from high school. In most cases, this results in greater maturity and allows for the development of better skills upon reaching the pros. Above all, it allows stars from certain schools like Tim Tebow or Colt McCoy to become household names nationwide, which further increases the sport’s popularity.
There should be some incentive or reason for talented kids to stay in college for at least three years. Currently there is none, beyond the obvious benefit of receiving an education, which many people believe does not happen with athletes on many campuses anyway. As a fan of college athletics, I will continue to watch the Pac-10 – my home conference – and some games that are broadcast nationally. Numerous factors have worked together to slowly erode college basketball’s popularity for most of the country.
Ridiculously early preseason predictions, combined with a mass exodus of young talent from the college ranks are undoubtedly hurting the sport. The players need to stay the same and some other things have to change in order to raise the level of interest in college basketball.
No comments:
Post a Comment