With the 2015 NCAA tournament in our rearview mirror and the college basketball season fully behind us, it is time to put the season and its achievements, failures, positives and shortcomings into proper perspective. And there is no better person to undertake that challenge than The Bilastrator himself. As always, you're welcome.
The season began with the gift of The Bilastrator's 2014-15 College Basketball Opus, which was the equivalent of Nostradamus taking the DeLorean far into the future, securing the Sports Almanac, then traveling back to October 2014 to tell all exactly what would happen in the coming months. Here are some of the many highlights from The Opus:
• The Bilastrator told all that the four national championship favorites would be Kentucky, Wisconsin, Duke and Arizona. All but Arizona reached the Final Four, and only the Selection Committee's failure to separate Wisconsin and Arizona in the bracket kept all four from a dreamy Final Four in Indy. But the committee failed to consult The Bilastrator or read The Opus. For shame, committee members, for shame.
• The Bilastrator also told all that the next tier of national championship contenders would include Michigan State, Gonzaga and Louisville. All reached the Elite Eight, with Michigan State beating Louisville to reach the Final Four.
• The Bilastrator told all that one of the "nontraditional" teams to watch was Georgia State, and also told all that R.J. Hunter was a "junior Reggie Miller" who was conscience-free and would play in the NBA. The Bilastrator also named Hunter the top perimeter shooter in the nation. You're welcome.
• The Bilastrator told all that NC State's Trevor Lacey was the transfer who would have the biggest impact, and he took the Wolfpack to the second weekend. The Bilastrator also told all that Delon Wright of Utah was the most undervalued and underappreciated player in the country, and Wright won the Cousy Award as the nation's top point guard.
So, The Bilastrator told all what would happen, it then happened, and now The Bilastrator will tell all what it all means.
Great games, but great game?
The NCAA tournament was, in a word, magnificent. But it always is, isn't it? Every year, despite the game's obvious shortcomings and areas that need improvement, the tournament delivers in a big way. The passion and intensity are wonderful, and the competition is fabulous. Yet those who claim to love the game have been critical of the overall product, while others who claim to love the game have defended it by pointing to ratings and the too-often-used phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Do not be fooled by a ratings uptick and some really compelling games. We had both of those things this year. The issue of ratings is easily explained and hardly dispositive of whether the game needs immediate attention. The ratings were up because Kentucky and Duke were present deep into the bracket, and there were teams to root for and root against, including one going for an undefeated season and a place in history.
Whether it was the regular-season or the NCAA tournament, Kentucky propped up ratings that otherwise probably would have been down. The Wildcats' march to perfection was compelling, and was the dominant theme throughout the season. Kentucky rates. Duke rates. The rest of college basketball does not rate as well, and ratings have dropped.
Pointing to a well-played game or the NCAA tournament as a whole to argue that college basketball is fine and nothing needs to be done to improve or maintain it is the equivalent of pointing to an unusually cold day and arguing that climate change does not exist. There is a difference between "weather" and "climate," just as there is a difference between "a game" and "the game."
Those who advocate for change in the game do not love the game less than those who say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In fact, when you love something, you are attentive to its needs, identify areas of improvement, and work diligently to make it better. We have not done that well in college basketball over the years, and we have allowed the game's balance to shift too far in favor of the defense.
Making the necessary adjustments and changes will not be easy, but such changes are necessary. There are three areas of improvement for college basketball, and all are equally important. We are not going to improve the game simply by shortening the shot clock or calling more hand-checking fouls. We need a comprehensive plan and the will to implement it and stick with it.
Administrative changes: College basketball needs sport-specific leadership. There needs to be a commissioner and one, small group that performs the function of a competition committee and a rules committee. We need to centralize authority over Division I basketball so decisions can be made that will allow the game to adapt and change with a changing landscape.
All of the other divisions under the NCAA umbrella can do whatever they please, because it doesn't matter. If Division II and Division III want a 45-second clock or use a sundial, nobody really cares. Similarly, the NBA is not worried about the rules and operation of high school basketball in South Dakota. It is totally irrelevant to the NBA, and there is no representation of South Dakota high school basketball on the NBA's competition committee. We are not running the United Nations here. We need to govern Division I properly. It is not as difficult as we are making it.
Officiating changes: We need to better govern officiating, because we have let our officials down. There needs to be a centralized authority over Division I college basketball. That "all powerful" authority can mandate how games will be called, and officials can be protected with such a mandate. Until we have centralized authority over officiating, we will continue to have inconsistent results.
Rules changes: Rather than "tweak" the rule book in a few places over a period of years, the best thing to do would be to adopt the FIBA rule book, and if we dislike some of FIBA's rules, we could simply eliminate the few rules we don't like. Of course, we won't do that -- we'll just change a few rules here and there. It is clear that we need to increase possessions, scoring and flow, and enhance freedom of movement, swinging the pendulum back to a balance between offense and defense in a game where the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the defense. Here are several rules that need to be changed, and changed in short order:
• Shot clock: The shot clock needs to be reduced from 35 seconds to 24 seconds. The rest of the world plays with a 24-second clock, and it is an aesthetically pleasing game that is better to play, better to coach, and better to watch. There is no excuse for having the slowest game in the world, and no legitimate reasoning behind the 35-second clock. The NBA has used a 24-second clock since 1955 and FIBA has used it since 2000, after using a 30-second clock since 1956. Women's basketball has used a 30-second clock since 1972 (the 30-second clock was implemented by the AWIA and held over when the NCAA began governing women's athletics in the early '80s).
Our rules need to be standardized with the rest of the world. There is no reason for men's college basketball to differ so vastly for so long, and it is past time to remedy this problem. And for the doomsday predictors: A shorter clock does not mean fewer upsets or "the best teams will win more." That is total nonsense. There are just as many upsets with a 24-second clock as with a 35-second clock, and the most efficient teams will continue to be the most efficient teams. They will just be more efficient with more possessions. That is a good thing.
• Lane and 3-point line: The lane needs to be widened to 16 feet to match FIBA and NBA rules, and the 3-point line needs to be moved out to the international distance of 22 feet. That will increase spacing and open up the lane to allow for better freedom of movement and the ability to attack the rim via the cut and the dribble. Offensive play will improve with a wider lane and the deeper 3-point distance, and all data from the NBA and FIBA prove it. The rest of the world does it, and it works very well. The WNBA does it, for crying out loud. College basketball should do it, too.
• Four quarters: College basketball is the only remaining form of the game in the world that does not have quarters. Four quarters will provide two additional end-of-clock plays and build in two additional timeouts, which will allow timeouts to be taken from the coaches.
• Reduce backcourt time: Instead of having 10 seconds to advance the ball to the frontcourt, the offensive team should have only eight seconds to provide incentive to advance the ball quickly. In addition, there should be no reset of the 10 seconds if a timeout is called in the backcourt, as currently occurs.
• Reduced reset time: When there is a shot clock reset in the frontcourt, such as when there is an offensive rebound, the shot clock should be reset only to 14 seconds (or 20 seconds if there is a 30-second clock). The offensive team does not have to advance the ball into the frontcourt, and does not need a full clock. FIBA has already made this change.
• Restricted arc: The "charge circle" in the middle of the lane should be extended to 4 feet from the current 3 feet. This will reduce collisions and provide more confrontations at the rim instead of collisions in front of it. Unless it is beyond any doubt that it is a charge, the "default call" should be a block.
• Timeouts: The number of timeouts needs to be reduced, and timeouts need to be taken away from coaches. Given that it is a 40-minute game, each team should get three timeouts. Any timeout called within 30 seconds of a media timeout should serve as the media timeout. There is no need for back-to-back timeouts like we have in college basketball. It kills flow.
• Freedom of movement initiative: We need a comprehensive "freedom of movement" initiative that mandates officials to call fouls on things that are fouls, such as holding and bumping cutters off the ball, illegally impeding ball handlers, violent contact in post play, and bodying up and illegal contact on shooters. Nobody is asking for touch fouls, but calling fouls based upon improper contact on offensive players. And for those who reflexively say "defense is 50 percent of the game," that is always true because someone always has the ball and someone is on defense. If you complain that your defense is disadvantaged (or the offense is allowed to play), you will get the ball back and have the opportunity to score against a defense subject to the same rules. Pretty simple.
Early-entry blues and moralizing
Years ago, most great players stayed in college for four years, and we all got to enjoy the best teams and best recruiting classes for a period of years. There was continuity from season to season, and at the end of one year, you knew exactly which teams and players would be among the best teams the following year. It was orderly and it was great. But those days are over, and they are never coming back. Never.
Players in today's game are leaving early, whether they are freshmen, sophomores or juniors. It has little to do with "one and done" because freshmen do not make up the majority of players leaving early. Players are not leaving early because they are less virtuous or lack the understanding that we had about the "value of education." They are leaving because they are getting a better offer, plain and simple.
Like the game itself, my view on early entry has evolved over time, and I have learned a great deal about the decisions made by so many different players of different stages of development. There have been many players who left early for the NBA and seemed to be making a mistake, yet wound up having long and productive careers. Similarly, there have been many who left and seemed like sure things, yet they failed and flamed out. You cannot always tell.
Many will lament the fact that most players aren't "ready" to be a pro at such an early age, or that disaster awaits them should they fail. There is not a "one size fits all" nature to the decision. Some may simply wish to be a high draft selection while others may be more prepared to step into the pro ranks and play right away. Each player has different circumstances and different wants and needs. What is a great decision for one is a poor decision for another in a similar situation.
The main problem comes in all of the moralizing around these decisions. We decry that players are leaving behind an education and the best time of their lives just for money, but what we are really saying is that we just want to watch them play in college longer, and enjoy them, and we want to make money off of them. We say it is all about the kids, but it is really all about us.
We need to stop making value judgments about these decisions and, truthfully, need to stop using quotation marks. We refer to anyone outside of the NCAA money machine as a "third-party adviser," "agent" or "so-called expert" and pretend that the player and the NCAA are the only legitimate parties who have the player's best interests at heart. We even use quotation marks with "family" at times. We say that there are too many people in their ears, and they are subject to "outside influences." I'm sure the players and the people they trust (especially their parents) may look at it another way, and may consider things quite differently.
It is terrific that all of us provide our opinions, and there is nothing wrong with providing those opinions and sharing thoughts with regard to the best options for a player making a decision on whether to choose the NBA route or the college route. But it is not OK to moralize, and pretend that it's about money for everyone else but not for us, and that we, the college enthusiasts, are the ones who truly care about these players, and that we are the ones who do things for the right reasons.
I would love to see more players stay in college, but I would love to see them choose to stay, not be limited in options by a higher age restriction or amateurism restrictions. I would like to see college basketball provide better incentives to choose the college route, but I don't blame players or those around them for doing exactly what we have been doing forever with regard to these players: maximizing their value. What players need is not a lecture about the value of education. Players need reliable information so they can make a fully informed decision. These are personal decisions, but as long as they are fully informed decisions, we should be OK with them instead of acting like spurned lovers. Whether a player is in college for one, two or three years before leaving early, we should encourage every player to go to college, and to continue their education after they leave.
Transfer blues
In addition to the hand-wringing over early entry, there is a ton of complaining over transfers. In my view, there shouldn't be. It is just not that big of a deal. If athletes are students first, and are to be treated like any other student, they should be allowed to transfer without restriction at the close of any school year. After all, these are unpaid amateurs, not professionals who are subject to noncompete provisions.
And make no mistake: Any restriction on a player transfer is the equivalent of a noncompete provision in an employment contract. It is wrong and unfair to treat an unpaid amateur student like a paid employee. Kansas State just dismissed almost half of its team. BYU just told a scholarship player to transfer over performance, and basically waived him. Those things happen all the time, but we are concerned about players leaving at the close of a season after fulfilling their commitment to play the season? That is the definition of hypocrisy.
Some use the term "free agency" to describe the transfer landscape, but that term is appropriate for professionals who are allowed to sign a contract, not unpaid amateur students. That said, the underlying concept of free agency is perfectly appropriate. When there is freedom of movement for your business assets, the cost to replace those assets goes up, and profit off those assets goes down. If players transfer, there is uncertainty, and you cannot continue to profit off them. They need to be replaced by an asset of similar value. This, too, is about money.
It is pretty simple to understand. If you don't want your players to transfer, treat them better and create an environment they would prefer not to leave. Let's not pretend that the rest of the world doesn't function in the same manner. If you are employed somewhere and your working conditions materially change, like management changes or a change in your direct superior, your job can change and you may wish to find another place to work. Or, if you are told when you were hired that you will have certain responsibilities or will be promoted on a certain career path and it doesn't happen as expected, you may very well look to leave.
The things that can stop you from leaving are a noncompete provision or the fact that you like it there and want to stay, or the absence of another job. Well, these players are assets in a multibillion-dollar business, and valuable assets, at that. If you want them to be contractually bound to the university, then provide them with compensation and treat them as the valuable assets that they are. Otherwise, there is no legitimate excuse to restrict a player from transferring after the season is over. This is not about competitive balance. This is about control of the athlete, and I believe it is wrong.
The best team?
Clearly, Duke was among the very best teams in the nation this year. Duke is the 2015 national champion and was the best team in the NCAA tournament. There is a lot to be said for being the best team at the right time, and every year people reflexively state that the NCAA tournament is "all about matchups," and you can be the best team and not win the title. Duke won the title, but I believe you can make a great case that Kentucky was the best team in college basketball throughout the 2014-15 season.
There is no argument about one thing: The Wildcats simply didn't finish it off in the NCAA tournament, losing in the national semifinal to fellow No. 1 seed Wisconsin. If you look back, it was The Bilastrator who told all that Kentucky was unbeaten but not unbeatable, and there was a difference between the two words. The Bilastrator also told all that to beat Kentucky, an opponent would have to do three things: control tempo, rebound on defense and move Kentucky's big men around on the floor to open up the lane. The Bilastrator told all that the team that best fit that profile and was the biggest threat to Kentucky was ... Wisconsin. Again, you're welcome.
I believe that college basketball owes Kentucky a debt of gratitude. Kentucky was compelling, from August in the Bahamas to April in Indy. John Calipari had an NBA combine, went with a platoon system, and put a team on the floor with eight McDonald's All-Americans and greater size than every NBA team, save one. The Wildcats had compelling talent, and never skipped a beat after losing quality upperclassman Alex Poythress to a knee injury, and did not falter when Trey Lyles was out for a few key games later in the season.
The Wildcats dared to be great, and to court history with an unbeaten season, and did it in style. They beat back every challenge, winning by a mile and hanging on by a thread, but always answering the bell and always being compelling to watch. In a season in which ratings were flat (and down overall) and there was not the same star power we have had in prior years, Kentucky was the force multiplier, the gripping story that propped up ratings and interest, giving us a ratings boost that made the entire game look like it was having a really good season.
The NCAA tournament was outstanding (as it usually is) and had boffo television ratings. But if you really look at it, it wasn't due to great upsets (we didn't really have many), it was due to the fact that we had Kentucky and Duke deep into the tournament. That was a game-changer and a ratings bonanza.
Kentucky was everything we claim to want in a college basketball team. The Wildcats players sacrificed. They played fewer minutes, took fewer shots, scored fewer points and played less glamorous roles than their talent demanded. They played for the name on the front, rather than the name on the back, the cliché we throw around so easily. Kentucky lived it. And they played defense, the ultimate measure of a true team. The players didn't talk trash, never got into trouble, and were model citizens on the floor and off. People don't have to like Kentucky -- that's fine. But this is a team that earned respect for the manner in which it went about its business. It was truly impressive.
Kentucky fell short of its goal of a national championship and an unbeaten season. But this team was 38-1 and one of the finest defensive teams of this generation. Sure, it fell short, but this team will be remembered for a long, long time, and rightfully so. Duke will be remembered longer and first because the Blue Devils won the championship. That is the way it should be.
The best coach?
This was a year of the "great coaching job," or, at least, we heard people say, "This has been [insert name of coach]'s best coaching job." Coaching is about a lot of different things, including recruiting, teaching, motivating, persistence, management and fine-tuning, to name a few. To me, the best coaching jobs are done by the coaches of the teams that win at the highest level, but there are other factors as well, such as getting the most out of your team, or winning with less. Here were some of the best coaching jobs in the country this past season:
Mike Krzyzewski, Duke: Coach K is making a great case for being the best of all time. His title run this season was really fun to watch, and incredibly interesting. After a promising start, he had a team that struggled to find a collective identity on the defensive end. He pressed, he played zone, he incorporated trapping, he played big and small lineups, and he kept with it. By the end of the season, Duke was among the best defensive teams in the country, and was the best defensive team in the NCAA tournament.
John Calipari, Kentucky: Winning with talent can be difficult, and John Calipari had talent. But he blended that talent together and convinced all of that talent to blend and sacrifice. He did it under the biggest spotlight, and he continued to teach and coach in every circumstance. Kentucky won 38 straight games before losing in the Final Four, and it was the best team.
Bo Ryan, Wisconsin: It was really fun to watch Wisconsin exploit matchups like an NBA team, and Bo Ryan has molded this group into a team that is totally unafraid. But don't kid yourself, Wisconsin had excellent talent. Frank Kaminsky, Sam Dekker, Nigel Hayes and Bronson Koenig will all be in the NBA, and Josh Gasser is a great college player who is a knee injury away from the NBA. Bo knows how to coach, but he also knows talent.
Sean Miller, Arizona: I had very few beefs with the committee, but putting Arizona and Wisconsin in the same region was one of them. Sean Miller's team was great on the defensive end, and matured and came along on the offensive end. Overall, his team was consistent at the highest level. This was a Final Four team that had its Final Four game in the Elite Eight. Sean Miller is one of the very best coaches in the country. He wants a Final Four to prove it, but he has already proved it.
Mark Few, Gonzaga: Like Sean Miller, Mark Few wants a Final Four to validate his decision to stay at Gonzaga. But he doesn't need one. Few is a Naismith Hall of Fame coach, and has been among the game's best for more than a decade. Over the past 10 years, few coaches can match his record of consistent excellence. One thing that Gonzaga struggled with this season was the outside expectation that anything short of a Final Four was a failure. Well, I think that is the ultimate measure of success. When Few took over at Gonzaga, who would ever have imagined that an Elite Eight loss to No. 1 seed Duke would be considered by some a disappointment? Wow. Gonzaga was 35-3 this season, with losses at Arizona, to BYU and to Duke.
Mike Brey, Notre Dame: The Irish were fun to watch, and it had to be fun to play for Notre Dame in 2014-15. Mike Brey kept his team loose, confident and prepared, and he believed in their ability to score points and play defense. By the end of the year, Notre Dame was winning with defense, and wound up winning the ACC tournament title -- its first -- and reaching the Elite Eight before falling to No. 1 overall seed Kentucky. The Irish did it all season long, and Mike Brey was the architect.
Jay Wright, Villanova: Like Brey, Jay Wright kept his team loose and confident, and took a bunch of very good players and blended them together into an unselfish group that would willingly pass up an open shot to get a better one. This was a terrific passing team that performed at a high level all season long. But in the NCAA tournament, Villanova shot the ball poorly, missed layups and was beaten early. Still, you don't go 33-3 without being really good, and really well coached. Jay Wright is a great coach, and proved it again this season.
Rick Pitino, Louisville: I loved what Rick Pitino did with his team this season. He had a really dynamic defensive team that couldn't really shoot the ball from the perimeter, yet Louisville won. Then, when he lost his ball-dominant point guard for the season, he adjusted his defense, inserted Quentin Snider into the lineup, and Louisville got better and better offensively. After a few weeks, Louisville was good enough to beat anyone, and only a really poor offensive second half against Michigan State kept Louisville out of the Final Four.
Tom Izzo, Michigan State: I heard people say this was Tom Izzo's best coaching job. While it was terrific, I'm not sure it was his best. How could it be, given how many great coaching jobs he has done? This Final Four appearance was a bit surprising, even to those clad in green. There is one thing Izzo does not do, and that is give up. He may enjoy being miserable in February, but he loves his team in March.
Mark Turgeon, Maryland: Those without patience were publicly speculating about Mark Turgeon's job (which affects recruiting), but that is the world we are living in. Turgeon simply kept plugging, and with a point guard (Melo Trimble) and a senior leader (Dez Wells), the Terps were among the better teams in a their new home, the Big Ten. Maryland turned it around, thanks to Turgeon sticking with it, and should be in the mix for a long time now.
Bill Self, Kansas: This was nowhere near Bill Self's best team at Kansas. In fact, this was the season that another Big 12 team was supposed to dethrone Kansas as the league champion. Well, KU won its 11th straight, so there. The Big 12 has a slogan, "One True Champion." Under Bill Self, that's Kansas.
Chris Holtmann, Butler: I'm not sure any coach had more to deal with this season than Chris Holtmann. He was the interim coach while Brandon Miller was on leave, then was named the head coach quite early in the season. Through it all, Holtmann was respectful of Miller, Butler and his players. He said and did all of the right things, and always struck the right chord. And he can really coach, too. Butler was tough, strong and creative on the offensive end. Holtmann's performance was excellent, on and off the floor.
Steve Alford, UCLA: When I saw UCLA in the Bahamas, I was impressed with the length and some of the pieces the Bruins had, but I wasn't sure UCLA would be able to put it together this season. I thought this would be a terrific team next season. And when I saw UCLA play at Arizona, I saw Steve Alford continue to coach a team that looked to many like it had gone south. Alford was persistent and stuck with it, and UCLA had a great finish in the NCAA tournament.
Ben Jacobsen, Northern Iowa: For everything Kentucky was and represented by sacrificing for the good of the team, UNI was the same. A few of Ben Jacobsen's starters were asked to come off the bench, and a couple had reduced minutes. Instead of complaining or making it difficult, they all bought in, and the Panthers were really tough to beat. Jacobsen did a fabulous job of taking advantage of Seth Tuttle, and of using counters to every action and anticipating every defensive tactic against his team.
Tony Bennett, Virginia: I don't know how Tony Bennett became such a symbolic lightning rod for the shot clock, but he doesn't deserve it. Virginia is fun to watch, plays hard defensively and shares the ball. Is it Loyola Marymount in 1990? No, but pace of play in college basketball is not decided only in Charlottesville. Bennett is an outstanding coach and did another great job this season. If not for the loss of Justin Anderson (he was never the same after his injury), Virginia would have been the best team in its bracket.
Jerod Haase, UAB: When I saw the Blazers in the Bahamas, there was no thought in my mind that UAB would reach the NCAA tournament, let alone beat Iowa State in the round of 64. Haase was stoic on the sidelines in the Bahamas, but he kept coaching and teaching. Haase absolutely belongs on this list for staying on course through a difficult start to the season.