ADVERTISEMENT

OT: NBA 2024-25 Season Thread

Seriously. With all of the player movement, what really is a college team anymore at this point? It's almost like watching pickup teams try to figure out how to play with each other for half the season, then once there's an identity that fans can grab hold of... Many go their separate ways over the summer.

So much of what it means to be a college basketball fan these days is almost like the NBA, being as concerned with trades and free agency as you are with the product on the court.

It's losing (has lost?) some of the special elements that brought me to the game in the first place.
 

Seriously. With all of the player movement, what really is a college team anymore at this point? It's almost like watching pickup teams try to figure out how to play with each other for half the season, then once there's an identity that fans can grab hold of... Many go their separate ways over the summer.

So much of what it means to be a college basketball fan these days is almost like the NBA, being as concerned with trades and free agency as you are with the product on the court.

It's losing (has lost?) some of the special elements that brought me to the game in the first place.
In terms of player movement it sucks…no loyalty

In terms of watching the actual games and flow of them. I enjoy it 1000x better than watching the NBA. So much standing around and just shooting 3s for 90% of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S_Janowski
Seriously. With all of the player movement, what really is a college team anymore at this point? It's almost like watching pickup teams try to figure out how to play with each other for half the season, then once there's an identity that fans can grab hold of... Many go their separate ways over the summer.

So much of what it means to be a college basketball fan these days is almost like the NBA, being as concerned with trades and free agency as you are with the product on the court.

It's losing (has lost?) some of the special elements that brought me to the game in the first place.

CBB has always been concerned about off the court player management.
Recruiting takes up much more fan interest than trades and free agency.

Also, the "in college you watch players for years" is extremely overstated.
You get 3-4 playable years with a player.
Obviously there are exceptions (just like in college with transfers in/out), but NBA teams have players for much longer.

This is besides the point that every aspect of "on court basketball" is better in the NBA than CBB.

The only thing CBB has is "I went to same school as those guys! I sat in the same classroom."
 
Last edited:
In terms of player movement it sucks…no loyalty

In terms of watching the actual games and flow of them. I enjoy it 1000x better than watching the NBA. So much standing around and just shooting 3s for 90% of the game.

Shooting and making 3s.
I'll never understand the "basketball is better when players miss shots" argument.

Pretty sure everyone loved Davis going 4-7 from 3 yesterday and keep lamenting our missed 3s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LotusAggressor
In terms of player movement it sucks…no loyalty

In terms of watching the actual games and flow of them. I enjoy it 1000x better than watching the NBA. So much standing around and just shooting 3s for 90% of the game.
There's less player movement in the NBA. The current collective bargaining agreement and the team payroll penalties make trades more difficult. The level of play in the NBA is much better. More players who can't shoot are hoisting 3s in college than in the NBA.
 
In terms of player movement it sucks…no loyalty

In terms of watching the actual games and flow of them. I enjoy it 1000x better than watching the NBA. So much standing around and just shooting 3s for 90% of the game.
I agree with your last point. Thing is though, it is not unique to basketball. It is a problem in any sports where teams use analytics (i.e., all of them).

The problem is that the strategies and tactics that teams correctly determine give them the best chance to win, also make the game less watchable to the fan base.

Baseball dealt with this aggressively by banning the shift and installing the pitch clock.

What if anything will basketball do?
 
CBB has always been concerned about off the court player management.
Recruiting takes up much more fan interest than trades and free agency.

Also, the "in college you watch players for years" is extremely overstated.
You get 3-4 playable years with a player.
Obviously there are exceptions (just like in college with transfers in/out), but NBA teams have players for much longer.

This is besides the point that every aspect of "on court basketball" is better in the NBA than CBB.

The only thing CBB has is "I went to same school as those guys! I sat in the same classroom."

Everyone comes to college basketball for different things.

When I "cut my teeth" on college basketball, as it were, there was very little in the way of player movement. Guys would drop down a level if they were clearly overmatched (or leave if there was a coaching change), but there wasn't much movement between major conference teams... and zero movement within conferences. The "off the court" player management was about picking up HS kids and JUCOs, not shopping from other programs.

Once you had a guy in the program, it was about "coaching them up". It was okay (and normal) for freshmen to see little time and then work their way in as sophomores/juniors. It was expected for bigs to not be ready and to have body control issues (fouls) for the first couple of years. HS recruiting battles were more about potential than immediate expectation of day-one impact.

I liked how you'd generally get a guy for 3-4 years and see them progress over time, become leaders on the team, and help bring the next generation along. There was a level of stability, but also a regular cadence of player turnover to graduation.

We lost a recruiting battle for Troy Murphy to Notre Dame... and there was no expectation he'd ever leave Notre Dame, just that we'd be booing him for 4 years. We lost a recruiting battle for Lance Thomas to Duke and had zero expectation that he'd ever leave the Blue Devils (at that time, Coach K didn't even recruit one-and-dones). We'd know we'd be heckling Khalid El-Amin every year, and that there would be the annual brother battle between Ricky/Jeff Greer. Superstar freshmen were generally a bit of spice added to an already-seasoned roster of upperclassmen. Senior Day mattered as a send-off to guys who'd been warriors in the program for 4 years.

The changes to the transfer rules ended that era. NIL threw gasoline on that fire.

Seeing a guy overperform as a freshman or sophomore used to get me excited for the next 2-3 years.... now it's a matter of whether they'll stay at all, or if we can afford to keep them. If we can't keep at least 6 of our current guys going into next year, I'm probably dropping my season tickets.

Here are the guys to start and finish at Rutgers dating back to Bannon (spending at least 3 years here and ending their careers with graduation, pros, or injury). In 2018, the transfer portal opened. In 2021, the rule was eliminated requiring first-time transfers to redshirt.

2026 -
2025 -
2024 - Palmquist* (transferred out but came back without playing for another team)
2023 - McConnell
2022 - Baker
2021 - Harper
2020 -
2019 -

**Transfer portal opened**

2018 - Williams, Sanders
2017 - Doorson, Batie
2016 - Lewis
2015 - Mack, Jack, Kone
2014 -
2013 - Miller, A. Johnson
2012 -
2011 - Coburn
2010 - N'Diaye
2009 - Inman, Farmer, Griffin
2008 - Joynes
2007 - Hill, Webb, Bailey
2006 - Douby
2005 - Shields, Wiggin
2004 - Lamizana, Axani, Piasecki
2003 - Sherrod, Wright
2002 - Kent, Dabney
2001 - Greer
2000 -
1999 - G. Billet, Hodgson, Johnson
1998 - Clark
 
Except they didn’t even ship him around. Something is fishy here. It’s such a bad trade
Exactly. They could have gotten a bazillion picks for Doncic, instead of a past prime, often-injured (albeit top) center. They must think Irving and Davis can win the west. Looks very suspicious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biazza38
Eliminate the 3 point shot for the 1st 6 minutes of every period. I'll bet the game improves.

NBA has the best and amazing athletes that can do crazy things, but talent is totally wasted by the 3 point line.
 
When I saw this in my feed Sunday morning, I thought it was fake. I guess Dallas just didn't feel comfortable giving him the max extension.
 
Completely feels like the NBA trying to make sure the Lakers stay relevant. Ridiculous trade.

Isn't it almost too obvious though?
Someone had to say "come on guys. This is too obvious. We barely got the Pau Gasol trade through."

But it's equally so unbelievable that the Mavs GM made the trade.
Maybe the GM owed the mob money?
 
Except they didn’t even ship him around. Something is fishy here. It’s such a bad trade

Listened to the latest Bill Simmons podcast.

Talks been going on since Jan 7th between Mavs/Lakers.

They had a good point - even if you decide "we're out on Luka and want a defensive big man".
Have a better process.

Call the Bucks and ask for Giannis.
Call the Celtics and ask for Tatum.
Get more Lakers picks.

Orginally it was a bigger deal but the Lakers talked them down.

Just gets weirder and weirder.
 
Heard a good conspiracy.
  • The new Dallas owners are a Vegas/gambling family.
  • Texas has repeatedly rejected legalizing casino gambling.
  • NBA has wanted a Vegas team as part of next expansion.
Result: Owners poison the well in Dallas by trading Luka. Move the team to Vegas as part of their casino plans. New expansion team goes to Dallas instead.

I wonder if it's cheaper to "buy Dallas Mavericks, move to Vegas, receive expansion payment as existing ow we" instead of "paying expansion fee for new Vegas franchise".
Would have to see the math on it.
 
Mets trading Tom Seaver is the closest parallel that comes to mind in terms giving the middle finger to your fanbase.
 
Heard a good conspiracy.
  • The new Dallas owners are a Vegas/gambling family.
  • Texas has repeatedly rejected legalizing casino gambling.
  • NBA has wanted a Vegas team as part of next expansion.
Result: Owners poison the well in Dallas by trading Luka. Move the team to Vegas as part of their casino plans. New expansion team goes to Dallas instead.

I wonder if it's cheaper to "buy Dallas Mavericks, move to Vegas, receive expansion payment as existing ow we" instead of "paying expansion fee for new Vegas franchise".
Would have to see the math on it.

Read another tweet that adds onto this.

By trading Luka, the Owners can now legitimately threaten Texas Legislature with "if you don't approve our casino/arena in Texas then we're moving to Vegas. We got rid of Luka so now we can move."

The trade makes the team worse in a couple years for the next Texas Legislature session - thus making the threat to move most plausible.
 
Heard a good conspiracy.
  • The new Dallas owners are a Vegas/gambling family.
  • Texas has repeatedly rejected legalizing casino gambling.
  • NBA has wanted a Vegas team as part of next expansion.
Result: Owners poison the well in Dallas by trading Luka. Move the team to Vegas as part of their casino plans. New expansion team goes to Dallas instead.

I wonder if it's cheaper to "buy Dallas Mavericks, move to Vegas, receive expansion payment as existing ow we" instead of "paying expansion fee for new Vegas franchise".
Would have to see the math on it.
That's quite a scenario, but it's one way that the trade makes sense. It certainly doesn't from a purely basketball standpoint.
 
Isn't it almost too obvious though?
Someone had to say "come on guys. This is too obvious. We barely got the Pau Gasol trade through."

But it's equally so unbelievable that the Mavs GM made the trade.
Maybe the GM owed the mob money?
It's just baffling. They work on it a month to come out with AD and one 1st? Sacramento got Zach Levine, 4 1st's, and 2 2nds for Fox, didn't they? Fox is older than Luka.
 
CBB has always been concerned about off the court player management.
Recruiting takes up much more fan interest than trades and free agency.

Also, the "in college you watch players for years" is extremely overstated.
You get 3-4 playable years with a player.
Obviously there are exceptions (just like in college with transfers in/out), but NBA teams have players for much longer.

This is besides the point that every aspect of "on court basketball" is better in the NBA than CBB.

The only thing CBB has is "I went to same school as those guys! I sat in the same classroom."

I think having 300+ teams of such widely varying strength is interesting
 
Shooting and making 3s.
I'll never understand the "basketball is better when players miss shots" argument.

Pretty sure everyone loved Davis going 4-7 from 3 yesterday and keep lamenting our missed 3s.

Do you think the NBA would be improved if they made the basket bigger?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT