This is the Most Balanced Field in the History of College Basketball

[Will Lavender]

I see one dominant team this year: the UCONN Huskies.

I see another team that is very, very good and I would be shocked if they lost before the Final Four: the Duke Blue Devils.

I think there are three more teams who will more than likely not be upset in the first weekend: Villanova, Texas, Memphis.

And then I see up to 40 teams, including Kentucky and five other SEC teams, who could make a run at the Sweet 16.

Never before have we seen such a balanced field. I feel like there are legitimately 20 Final Four contenders, including the three teams at the top of the SEC.

It's unbelievable.

[Littlemeyer]

I agree. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is how its going to be from now on. The NBA's new rule may affect it, but I don't think it will be drastic. It will be harder for anybody to achieve continuity.

Heck, I'd take it a step further...It wouldn't shock me if Texas, Villanova, and Memphis don't make it out of the first weekend. Duke and UCONN are CLEARLY the class of the field this year.

[Coldstream]

Winning the office pool for March Madness this year is going to be a more daunting task then prior years!!

The success-rate for people who have not followed college b-ball or just b-ball is going to go up as well. :shock:

I think I'll ask my 5 year old nephew to pick the field.

[Will Lavender]

One thing that has caused this balance is the definition of "talent."

There are so many gym rats, so many guys who live out behind the three point line and in the weight room, that you're seeing a lot of players who come out of nowhere to change the way games are played. This is also why the mid-majors have crept up and have really rightfully earned a place in the discussion with everybody else: these gym rats are that much more effective because in the case of most mid-major rosters, they're 22 years old. Big difference between a senior veteran and a sophomore who has NBA dreams.

I saw OJ Mayo play last month. He's a great player, definitely. He will be a blessing to any team who gets him. But I think the "Whoever gets him will win a championship, and then he'll go pro" speculation is bunk. I saw that kid get locked down for 30 minutes against a team of future Division II players.

There are exceptions to this rule. Talent is still talent if it's in bulk, as UCONN has, or if it is combined with tremendous skill, like Villanova, or if it is combined with experience, like Duke. There is still, and will always be, those one in a million players who are both good and lucky, like Carmelo in '03.

But parity has never been more apparent, in my mind, than it has been this season.

[RaleighCat]

Will, I won't disagree that we're in a balanced-era of college basketball. But I'm not ready to concede this season (or this era) as the MOST BALANCED IN HISTORY.

Here's why- in the days before "parity" ruled college basketball as we know it, there were years with multiple great teams with outstanding talent coming from major conferences in droves. This was primarily in the 1980's after the tourney expanded and before early departures were common. Before scholly reductions and the birth of the "Mid Major." Take this bracket from 1985 as an example...http://bracketville.tripod.com/1985.html

In '85 we had Villanova beat Georgetown in the finals, St. John's and Memphis rounding out the Final Four. The Elite 8 also included Ga Tech, UNC, NC State and OK. Sweet 16 added Loyola, Ill, UK, Bama, La Tech, BC, MD and AU.

That's 3 teams from the Big East in the Final Four and 4 in the Sweet 16. The ACC had 3 of the Elite 8 and 4 in the Sweet 16. The SEC put 3 in the Sweet 16. Memphis in the FF, OK in the Elite 8, Loyola and La Tech in the Sweet 16.

You'll also see household names like Kansas, Michigan, Duke, Ohio State, Arkansas, Syracusemixed in with Notre Dame, Navy, UAB, Ill State, Va Commonwealth and SMU all playing at least two games. Check some of the scores and you'll see 2 and 3 point games, even some OT. That's a pretty "balanced" bracket. Power programs and little guys, each with good-to-great talent.

In those days you had super-talented upperclassmen leading teams. Guys like Patrick Ewing, Keith Lee, Ed Pickney, Chris Mullin, Walter Berry, Wayman Tisdale, Johnny Dawkins, Mark Price, Roy Tarpley, Kenny Walker, Dwayne Washington, etc. Can you imagine the nightly battles in the Big East or the ACC? The SEC and Big Ten were loaded too. There might not have been an Adam Morrison at Gonzaga or Fazekas at Nevada- but you had Xavier McDaniel at Wichita State, Jon Koncak at SMU, Alfredrick Hughes at Loyola. Excellent players at smaller schools made big noise just like today.

Today's game is balanced and there is parity, but I'm not ready to call it the most balanced era in history. Different kind of balance maybe.

[Will Lavender]

RaleighCat wrote: Will, I won't disagree that we're in a balanced-era of college basketball. But I'm not ready to concede this season (or this era) as the MOST BALANCED IN HISTORY.

Here's why- in the days before "parity" ruled college basketball as we know it, there were years with multiple great teams with outstanding talent coming from major conferences in droves. This was primarily in the 1980's after the tourney expanded and before early departures were common. Before scholly reductions and the birth of the "Mid Major." Take this bracket from 1985 as an example...http://bracketville.tripod.com/1985.html

In '85 we had Villanova beat Georgetown in the finals, St. John's and Memphis rounding out the Final Four. The Elite 8 also included Ga Tech, UNC, NC State and OK. Sweet 16 added Loyola, Ill, UK, Bama, La Tech, BC, MD and AU.

That's 3 teams from the Big East in the Final Four and 4 in the Sweet 16. The ACC had 3 of the Elite 8 and 4 in the Sweet 16. The SEC put 3 in the Sweet 16. Memphis in the FF, OK in the Elite 8, Loyola and La Tech in the Sweet 16.

You'll also see household names like Kansas, Michigan, Duke, Ohio State, Arkansas, Syracusemixed in with Notre Dame, Navy, UAB, Ill State, Va Commonwealth and SMU all playing at least two games. Check some of the scores and you'll see 2 and 3 point games, even some OT. That's a pretty "balanced" bracket. Power programs and little guys, each with good-to-great talent.

In those days you had super-talented upperclassmen leading teams. Guys like Patrick Ewing, Keith Lee, Ed Pickney, Chris Mullin, Walter Berry, Wayman Tisdale, Johnny Dawkins, Mark Price, Roy Tarpley, Kenny Walker, Dwayne Washington, etc. Can you imagine the nightly battles in the Big East or the ACC? The SEC and Big Ten were loaded too. There might not have been an Adam Morrison at Gonzaga or Fazekas at Nevada- but you had Xavier McDaniel at Wichita State, Jon Koncak at SMU, Alfredrick Hughes at Loyola. Excellent players at smaller schools made big noise just like today.

Today's game is balanced and there is parity, but I'm not ready to call it the most balanced era in history. Different kind of balance maybe.

Good points.

College basketball has always been a balanced game. I was thinking about the UK team who lost to LSU in the mid-'80s on Saturday. What a freaky thing that was, to beat them three times in the regular season and then to have them come back as an 11 seed and get to the Final Four.

Parity, I guess, was out in full force back then as well.

I think the balance has been notched up a little because parity has crept outside of the BCS conferences and allowed discussions like "Will the MVC get 5 teams in?" to happen. Simply unheard of. I think many of the major conferences are deeper than normal this year, but also many of the mid-major conferences are fairly deep as well.

Again, I think the three point line and the way it's being used has had a lot to do with this. The three pointer changes the complexion of games so quickly, and it seems like most teams have 4 or 5 guys who are capable of making that shot consistently.

Also, I think the game has become neutralized in the paint. There are some great big men in this game, but I think there are so many muscle-bound athletes down there and so much pushing and tugging that the referees will not concede anything. As soon as the ball is entered to the post, there's a whistle.

So the game is actually, literally being pushed toward the three point line. And that's where most games are played these days. What's happened is that a lot of the future NBA'ers, the true talent, is sometimes being outshined by guys who have learned how to master a shot that is worth more points than the slashers, the super-athletic "talented" players, can consistently get.

[DCWildcat]

I agree with Lavender, as usual. In fact, I don't know if it'll ever get more balanced. Reason?

1) The increasing popularity of basketball + the increasing population of the country has created an astronomical number of great and good players. We're no longer in a spot where the 12 great players can all go on one team, and dominate for a decade (UCLA). There's just too many. Great players get spread out among many programs, and so many good players must play at mid-major teams. Players who, 10 years ago would have played at top-tier programs must play at mid-majors. The creates a balancing effect, where talent is distributed more equally among the entire Division 1. Thus, we have the most balanced rosters to date.
2) But it won't continue. We're still a season away before the new NBA age rules take effect. Guys like Shaun Livington, JR Smith, Amare Stoudamire, who would have been absolutely unstoppable in college, are in the NBA. Without that full-fledged domination, the absolute freakishly talented guys can't dominate like they used to. But now, as players like Greg Oden and OJ mayo have to play in college before they go to the NBA, we'll probably regress a bit. We'll have more guys who go one-and-done and have sickeningly good seasons like Carmelo Anthony did with Syracuse. Thus, the balanced trend won't continue.

[Will Lavender]

DCWildcat wrote: Thus, the balanced trend won't continue.

I believe it might.

Obviously, the NBA rule change is going to make some difference.

But I think some of these guys are going to come to school and see that they are not really ready for the League. As I said above, I don't see OJ Mayo coming in, unless he joins a talented team, and single-handedly leading a team to a Final Four. Not even Carmelo single-handedly hoisted Syracuse on his back: he was on a pretty good team.

I think the divide between good, experienced college players and superstar athletes who are going to make millions has dwindled down to just a razor-thin line that denotes very little.

True, there are players who will probably be "unstoppable" coming to school for at least for a year now that the age limit is in play.

But how many Amare Stoudamires are there in the world?Just ahandful.

[Littlemeyer]

And the question remains, what schools are going to land those 1-2 year players with nothing on their mind but the NBA? Will they go to the traditional powers, ie UK, Kansas, Duke, UNC, etc, and run the risk of battling for playing time, not racking up as many minutes as they could elsewhere? Or will they go to less-traditional powers (Memphis???) with coaches with NBA ties, where they can start right away and play near 40 minutes every night?

Continuity...I'm telling ya....thats what it is going to boil down to. A school may get lucky one year and get a Stoudamire or L. James type player, but I doubt that a small hand-full of schools will get these players year-in and year-out.

[RaleighCat]

This type of modern balance should continue for years- at least until the NBA decides to contract (eliminate teams) or quit drafting foreign players and/or teenagers.

Modern balance is about college teams cobbling together one or two great recruiting classes and contending at a high level for a few seasons. Sustaining that streak is the hard part and what ultimately seperates the Power Programs from everyone else.

Take Ohio State, Villanova and West Virginia for example. Ohio State is currently 21-4, ranked #9 with good young talent and a rising young coach in Thad Motta. Next year they get even better with Oden & Co. arriving. How long they stay hot depends on how long these kids stay and if Motta can continue getting them. But Ohio State was not an "elite" team that long ago. That's modern balance.

Same with Villanova and WVU. Will they stay hot next year and beyond? Hard to say. Who takes their place? Who will land Mayo & Co? Which coaching changes create instant sizzle at a currently under-achieving school?

IMHO, this is the balance factor that changes the landscape every couple of years and creates parity.

[Backrate]

somebody says this every year(usually cbs)
not much changes imho
u always have 1-3 teams that are the favorites
the next tier has 3-8 teams that has a shot
everybody else -it will take minor miracle for them to cut the nets

[Will Lavender]

Backrate wrote: somebody says this every year(usually cbs)
not much changes imho
u always have 1-3 teams that are the favorites
the next tier has 3-8 teams that has a shot
everybody else -it will take minor miracle for them to cut the nets

I can't remember another year when George Washington and Gonzaga were both top 10 teams. When the Missouri Valley Conference was lobbying for five teams. When that same conference, the MVC, has a better RPI than the Pacific 10.When a conference was so deep that it was going to take a possible 9 teams to the Dance. When Hofstra, Bucknell, Missouri State and Creighton were all ahead of Kentucky in the RPI. When a Final Four team (Louisville) was struggling to even make it in to their conference tournament. When the player of the year is going to come out of a tiny school on the West Coast that has never been to a Final Four.

As RaleighCat says, it's ALWAYS balanced. But this year it is locked up after you get past Duke and UCONN. There are more than 3-8 teams who are vying for this thing. Try 20-25.

[Backrate]

the names change but still only 2-3 teams that are legit

[ukbob]

Good thread.

I still think UCONN is the head of the class this year, much like UNC was last yearand I also think Duke will go as far as they want until they meet UCONN. After those 2, who knows. I don't see Nova as a "6 games in a row" type team because they are fairly one dimensional. Teams like Tenn are hot now and can put a hurt on you at any time, but their lack of playing defense will be their undoing in the tournament, IMO. Memphis is way too undisciplined to get as far as the 2 big dogs. They have the talent and if they decide to play under control, they could be the ones to watch.

It is very balanced beyond those 2 teams and most anything can happen. But at the end of the day I still believe you will see at least 2 #1 seeds in the Final Four. I also feel strongly that this will be another great tournament to watch, much like last year. There will likely be upsets galore, if you can call them that these days.

I think the "sexy" schools will be the hot teams in the future. ESPN exposure(ACC), and highranked recruits that make it to the NBA in the 1st round after a brief stint in school will dictate who is the real team to beat. Ohio State and Matta will be a hot commodity for a year or 2, but will fade back to their stature of just a very good Big 10 team after the Oden group bolts early. Villanova will have a run or 2 but will be up and down over the years as well. Gonzaga will rebuild after Morrison but they won't be the darlings forever.

It is the ACC where the publicity lies, where the "sexiness" is, IMO. They will continue to dominate recruiting along with select teams like UCONN from the Big East. This makes it double tough for traditions like UK to maintain tradition. Having a bad year doesn't help and neither is being in the SEC. Besides...the new kids on the block(that will have major impacts on the programs)want to get in and out as fast as possible nowadays. And typically, Tubby doesn't recruit well to that scenario. Doesn't mean you cannot win anyway, it just makes it harder and takes longer to develop.

Just an opinion.

[Houstoncat]

I think you need good juniors and seniors, leader types, good players who can handle and know how to play. You balance that with a stud sophomore and an up and coming freshman and you have a team. You have to have experianced guards. I honestly think this is the type of team TS has been trying to develop ie similar to the 2003 teambut his recruiting has come up short.

Balance is good in Colleage, I'm not convinced UCONN will make it. I'm not quite sure why just a feeling. Gonzaga is soft well coached but soft. Duke...Duke is Duke and has Coach K. They can be had it Williams can be controlled. UNC is the scary team in my opinion. Long, quick, unpredictable because they are young and young guards that what might hold them back. Gonna be a good tournament.

[Ralph Cramden]

Parity is the name of the game in college hoops. The Big 10 and the Big East are the toughest conferences, no doubt about that. This will be an exciting NCAA Tournament.

[GoTubby]

Totally agree! Probably an odd statement, but I really think basketball has been studied and analyzed more in the past 20 years, than at any other point. Basketball has evolved into much more of a chess match, rather than a race between athletes.

Just think of the number of camps, coaching clinics, websites, magazines, publications, etc. that focus on various styles and philosophies of b-ball. Coacheswho are able to master these concepts and instill them correctly, simply do not need 5 Star athletes. If you space/balance the floor, cut down on mental errors, and place three players on the court that can knock down the "great 3 equalizer," the game becomes much shorter. I guess it comes with age, but I remember even being 18 years old and thinking that 40 minutes was an eternity.

I'm 29 now and the game has gotten much shorter in the sense of possessions. Certian plays define the flow of the game, much like a scene in a movie. Crazy sport this is!

[audacious1]

Coldstream wrote: I think I'll ask my 5 year old nephew to pick the field.


That's how you win! 8^)