JJ comment on pro vs. college

[Billy Dat]

Ouch...

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nba/story/4434692/
Redick's alma mater, Duke, recently rose to the No. 1 national ranking only to lose the next time out to Wake Forest. Though Redick missed that game for a John Legend concert, he admitted it's weird to watch Duke now that he's in the NBA.

"It's actually kind of hard for me to watch college basketball now," Redick said. "The level of play is remarkably different."

[CDu]

Ouch...

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nba/story/4434692/
Redick's alma mater, Duke, recently rose to the No. 1 national ranking only to lose the next time out to Wake Forest. Though Redick missed that game for a John Legend concert, he admitted it's weird to watch Duke now that he's in the NBA.

"It's actually kind of hard for me to watch college basketball now," Redick said. "The level of play is remarkably different."

It's true. For all the people that badmouth the NBA, the quality of play is MUCH higher than college. It's just that the quality of play is higher on both ends of the floor. Players are bigger, stronger, more athletic, and have better skills. It's a big reason why a guy like Reddick can dominate the college game but struggle to be a consistent presence in the pros.

[Lord Ash]

And I wouldn't watch the NBA if you paid me. Literally. While the level of skill is clearly not the same, neither is the level of heart or commitment or willingness-to-get-floorburns.

Honestly, the high level of skill in the NBA almost makes it LESS interesting to me... seeing college kids really have to work for it makes it almost more worthwhile.

[COYS]

And I wouldn't watch the NBA if you paid me. Literally. While the level of skill is clearly not the same, neither is the level of heart or commitment or willingness-to-get-floorburns.

Honestly, the high level of skill in the NBA almost makes it LESS interesting to me... seeing college kids really have to work for it makes it almost more worthwhile.

I sympathize with this sentiment, but the sheer number of games makes it impossible for even the most dedicated players to dive after every loose ball. You've got to pace yourself and take care of yourself in the NBA. If there were only 30-35 games in the regular season, I think the regular season would be far more similar to the college games in terms of visible signs of hustle (diving into the stands, floor-burns, etc.). You definitely see that in the playoffs and in high profile regular season games (or high stakes regular season games). What hurts the perception of the NBA are the multitude of games between teams with nothing really to play for except better odds in the draft lottery.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I sympathize with this sentiment, but the sheer number of games makes it impossible for even the most dedicated players to dive after every loose ball. You've got to pace yourself and take care of yourself in the NBA. If there were only 30-35 games in the regular season, I think the regular season would be far more similar to the college games in terms of visible signs of hustle (diving into the stands, floor-burns, etc.). You definitely see that in the playoffs and in high profile regular season games (or high stakes regular season games). What hurts the perception of the NBA are the multitude of games between teams with nothing really to play for except better odds in the draft lottery.

Completely agree. A regular season game in the NBA isn't as important as a regular season game in college. Unlike college basketball, the NBA is all about the playoffs (and no, I don't think college basketball is all about March. March is a hell of a good time, but games like the Wake game a couple of days ago are incredible as well. you don't get that in college).

I personally like the NBA. I don't watch it as much or as frequently, but the sheer athleticism is incredible. It's like watching 5 Hendersons on the court at the same time. That said, the college game still trumps the NBA.

[jimmymax]

I caught most of the interview on the radio today. It was lunchtime when I heard it and JJ sounded like he had just rolled out of bed and was distracted by the ESPN ticker he was watching while talking. Many of the answers were a rephrasing of the question just asked. It was not JJ at his best.

[Rudy]

Unless there is a marquis matchup when the teams play for pride, I don't bother watching any regular season NBA games. I will watch playoffs, although even then I usually skip the first round unless my home team is in it.

[roywhite]

Unless there is a marquis matchup when the teams play for pride, I don't bother watching any regular season NBA games. I will watch playoffs, although even then I usually skip the first round unless my home team is in it.

Marquis de Sade
marquee matchup
:)

[CameronCrazy'11]

Well, duh. The worst team in the NBA would still cream the best team in the NCAA every year.

Still, I enjoy college ball a lot more. More passion and teamwork in my opinion.

[KandG]

I've always watched a fair amount of NBA ball along with college (especially the playoffs), but this year I've spent even more time than usual watching NBA regular season games...and I agree with JJ.

College is great because of the intensity, no question -- there are too many regular season games in the NBA (just as there are too many in major league baseball...it's all about the money), and at this time of year, when there are a few teams that are clearly established as terrible, and some of the better teams are going through a slump, some matchups can be a real chore to watch.

But the overall level of play in the pros is incredibly high, and it isn't all about ten great athletes running out on the floor and rolling the ball out to have them go at it. There are a lot of nuances on offense and defense, changes in rhythm, matchups between various lineups and different players, and the pro game has become much more finesse oriented on the perimeter (some would say too much so) and more players have become very versatile in the range of inside and outside skills they possess.

The interesting thing is that when they did the announcer swap on ESPN (Vitale doing an NBA game, Van Gundy-Jackson doing the college game), I think even Vitale was surprised at how much depth there was in the NBA game. You hear him drop in things in his broadcasts now like how the college game should implement the restricted area for charges that the NBA uses. Doug Collins, in turn, laments how much more physical the college game has gotten relative to the pros.

I think it's good to watch both -- the best college matchups have crazy intensity that's hard to duplicate in the average NBA game, but a good NBA matchup has plenty of rewards for the passionate basketball fan as well.

[Billy Dat]

I think the NBA is great, and I think a lot of fans that were lost in the post Jordan era have missed the dawn of a great new generation of players that really started with Kobe and KG, picked up steam with the Brand-era and took off with the Lebron, DWade, Dwight Howard era. Anytime Lebron is on TV, it is worth watching.

[captmojo]

I never played pro ball but I would have been completely frustrated with the difference in the feeling, in my shooting hand, between a Top Flight ball and the NBA ball. Maybe the biggest trouble would have been with me rather than others.

[Dukeford]

I never played pro ball but I would have been completely frustrated with the difference in the feeling, in my shooting hand, between a Top Flight ball and the NBA ball. Maybe the biggest trouble would have been with me rather than others.


Who are you Mojo? Were you really All-ACC.
Is so that would be interesting.
My apologies if this is already known to most on here............

[captmojo]

Who are you Mojo? Were you really All-ACC.
Is so that would be interesting.
My apologies if this is already known to most on here............

Who? Just a fan.
Was I? No.
Interesting? Quite possibly.
No apology necessary.

[Kim*]

I haven't watched the NBA (aside from a random game here and there) since I was 9 years old. That's the age that I discovered college basketball. I'd much rather watch scrappy kids play for heart and pride, than grown conditioned men play for millions.

[bludvlman]

Well, duh. The worst team in the NBA would still cream the best team in the NCAA every year.

Still, I enjoy college ball a lot more. More passion and teamwork in my opinion.

Remember back in 99 people debating whether Duke could beat the Clippers, but then Duke went out and lost to UCONN in the Championship team.

[COYS]

Remember back in 99 people debating whether Duke could beat the Clippers, but then Duke went out and lost to UCONN in the Championship team.
As much as I try to forget, I do still remember that.

[brevity]

"It's actually kind of hard for me to watch college basketball now," Redick said. "The level of play is remarkably different."

While this is a valid way to compare the sports, the NBA's high level of play creates a clear hierarchy of teams, where the more talented team generally wins. There's really no such thing as an upset in the NBA regular season, which can diminish the viewers' excitement considerably.

College basketball is less structured and has more erratic play, which creates an unpredictable environment where upsets are common. To this viewer, that makes the game as a whole better to watch, whether Duke is playing or not.

[monkey]

Remember back in 99 people debating whether Duke could beat the Clippers, but then Duke went out and lost to UCONN in the Championship team.

Actually, I still do think that Duke team could have beaten that Clippers team. They were that good. The loss to UConn doesn't diminish it. I note that Brand and Maggette have had nearly ten year careers in the league, on the verge of all-star level in a number of years. Battier came out later but has been a fairly consistent starter through most of his career. And the Clippers really, really sucked bad.

[bludvlman]

Actually, I still do think that Duke team could have beaten that Clippers team. They were that good. The loss to UConn doesn't diminish it. I note that Brand and Maggette have had nearly ten year careers in the league, on the verge of all-star level in a number of years. Battier came out later but has been a fairly consistent starter through most of his career. And the Clippers really, really sucked bad.

We might be able to take them, the fact is that Duke shot really poorly in that game and our starting five was really good. Battier was decent then but didn't take off until the next year.

G Langdon
G Avery
F Carrawell
F Battier
C Brand

With Burgess and Maggette being the main bench guys.

I think that was the most talented team Duke has ever had including our three title teams. I think that Avery might have been the best PG Duke ever had if he would have stayed for four years, he was so good.

[devilirium]

He made a great point about the use of motion offenses to disguise a lack of overall talent. Though he didn't come out and say it, I think what he really misses is seeing those teams from '99-01. Those teams were team oriented but supremely talented. I'm pretty sure that the stars of our current team (Hendo and Singler and then Scheyer) would've been a sixth or seventh man on that team (or arguably all three). I wish that he wouldn't have used the word "weird", but that might be also be a reflection of him studying the pro game so much (in between the John Legend concert that he was attending on the nite of the Wake game---that still pains me, though).

[BobbyFan]

I sympathize with this sentiment, but the sheer number of games makes it impossible for even the most dedicated players to dive after every loose ball. You've got to pace yourself and take care of yourself in the NBA. If there were only 30-35 games in the regular season, I think the regular season would be far more similar to the college games in terms of visible signs of hustle (diving into the stands, floor-burns, etc.). You definitely see that in the playoffs and in high profile regular season games (or high stakes regular season games).

Agreed. Other factors which may make for the appearance of college basketball having the better product are the college crowds in regular season games which NBA crowds can't compare with, and the fact that each postseason NBA game is worth less only because it is part of a best of 7 series.


Actually, I still do think that Duke team could have beaten that Clippers team. They were that good. The loss to UConn doesn't diminish it. I note that Brand and Maggette have had nearly ten year careers in the league, on the verge of all-star level in a number of years. Battier came out later but has been a fairly consistent starter through most of his career. And the Clippers really, really sucked bad.

The Clippers did really suck. But they would have still beaten Duke without much difficulty.

[EarlJam]

I caught most of the interview on the radio today. It was lunchtime when I heard it and JJ sounded like he had just rolled out of bed and was distracted by the ESPN ticker he was watching while talking. Many of the answers were a rephrasing of the question just asked. It was not JJ at his best.

Perhaps he was hungover? Stoned?

I'm not kidding - and definitely not judging.

The key is that he said it's hard to watch "college basketball," vs. "Duke." Or maybe he did say that that in an indirect way. That would be far more dissapointing. I remember hearing Giminski talk about how elated he was after the "Laettner shot." A the time he was still playing in the NBA. One would think you'd never get tired of watching the school where you spent four years; the one that gave you your career in the NBA.

-EJ

[CDu]

Who are you Mojo? Were you really All-ACC.
Is so that would be interesting.
My apologies if this is already known to most on here............

I assume you were referrign to the title underneath CaptMojo's username. That's simply a reference to how many posts the poster has made.

[CDu]

Agreed. Other factors which may make for the appearance of college basketball having the better product are the college crowds in regular season games which NBA crowds can't compare with, and the fact that each postseason NBA game is worth less only because it is part of a best of 7 series.

I think the crowd has a LOT to do with the difference people see in the pro and college game. The college game has younger, more enthusiastic crowds, as students make a substantial portion in virtually every game. The college games are also frequently played in smaller arenas which trap sound better than the 18,000+ seat places. It makes the games feel more intense when you can hear the ebb and flow of the crowd as well as watch the play on the court.


The Clippers did really suck. But they would have still beaten Duke without much difficulty.

I agree. That Duke team was one of the very best college teams ever, and they had one guy who would become an All-Star caliber player, another guy who would become a very productive scorer, a third guy who would be a very solid role players (though one would eventually fall to injuries and play out his career in Europe). But that team had just three or four NBA regulars (unless you count Will Avery's failed NBA stint). An NBA team even as bad as the Clips could match the talent at the top AND have a roster 8-10 deep of NBA talent. So even one of the most talented college teams ever would likely lose to a low-quality NBA team.

[Clipsfan]

I agree. That Duke team was one of the very best college teams ever, and they had one guy who would become an All-Star caliber player, another guy who would become a very productive scorer, a third guy who would be a very solid role players (though one would eventually fall to injuries and play out his career in Europe). But that team had just three or four NBA regulars (unless you count Will Avery's failed NBA stint). An NBA team even as bad as the Clips could match the talent at the top AND have a roster 8-10 deep of NBA talent. So even one of the most talented college teams ever would likely lose to a low-quality NBA team.

All of that is true, although a lot of the argument at the time was that the Clippers didn't truly have NBA level talent at the time. They were BAD. I believe that Eric Piatkowski was the highest paid player on that team, and the entire team was (in order of average points scored):

Maurice Taylor
Lamond Murray
Eric Piatkowski
Tyrone Nesby
Michael Olowokandi
Sherman Douglas
Darrick Martin
Rodney Rogers
Troy Hudson
Lorenzen Wright
Brian Skinner
Charles Smith
Pooh Richardson
Keith Closs
Stojko Vrankovic

I mean, really? Sterling actually charged people to watch that team?

[CDu]

All of that is true, although a lot of the argument at the time was that the Clippers didn't truly have NBA level talent at the time. They were BAD. I believe that Eric Piatkowski was the highest paid player on that team, and the entire team was (in order of average points scored):

Maurice Taylor
Lamond Murray
Eric Piatkowski
Tyrone Nesby
Michael Olowokandi
Sherman Douglas
Darrick Martin
Rodney Rogers
Troy Hudson
Lorenzen Wright
Brian Skinner
Charles Smith
Pooh Richardson
Keith Closs
Stojko Vrankovic

I mean, really? Sterling actually charged people to watch that team?

Yes, that Clippers team was prolifically bad. And it still had probably enough depth to beat that Duke team, which was one of the best of all time. That's one of the only comparisons that is even remotely worth discussing, and it's at two of the furthest extremes.

[Spret42]

I have to admit I find it strange that in a society that celebrates achievement and skills above all else, especially in sports, the NBA is routinely downgraded by people because the players are "too good." In no other sport do we say it is more fun to watch the less skilled guys.

The NBA has a ton of faults yes, but the level of play is routinely unreal. These guys know each others games inside and out. Like someone said the nuance and matchups offer so much to enjoy when you take the time.

I have some ideas on why this is, and they make folks uncomfortable as hell, but I would really like some other folks to tell me what they think.

[Billy Dat]

Let's be realistic, the worst NBA team would kill the best college team. The worst NBA bench would kill the best college team. That Clippers squad would have killed Duke - there is no probably to it - they would have killed them. The only evidence to the contrary is the famous '92 Dream Team losing a scrimmage to the college All Stars, but that fish story grows by the year (I'd like to see a documentary made that tries to figure out, Roshamon-esque, what really happened in that gym).

Spret42 - You raise an interesting topic and one that has been debated on these pages more than once. I think you can find the detractors in several buckets:

-The NBA guys don't care as much as college players for various reasons, the most prominent being their vast wealth.

-The NBA game is boring as defined by isolations on offense and clutching and grabbing defense. This is an outdated opinion that was legimitately born of the Riley Knicks and Bad Boy Piston era and one that has softened with the new-ish defense rules (zone and hand-checking) and D'Antoni offensive revolution.

-The talent has been diluted by expansion and the product has suffered. Again, I think this is an old saw that was once true but has been balanced by the influx of foreign talent, not to mention talented teenagers.

-The League is too hip hop, as personified by Allen Iverson. I think this one speaks for itself. Of course, college hoops is hip hop, too....as is the NFL. What does being "too hip hop" mean. It's too easy to say "too black" because while Hip Hop culture comes from and is rooted in the black community, it's also the dominant youth culture of white, hispanic and asian americans in terms of entertainment, fashion, slang, etc. But, college programs have pretty intense control over players' fashions and what they say to the media, so the hip hop core doesn't show as much - but it's there. Maybe a black basketball loving president will help lessen this perceived barrier to enjoyment of the NBA.

-There have been some ugly events, like the malace at the palace, which didn't help matters.

Honestly, I think the product wasn't as good between Jordan's initial retirement and about 2 years ago. A lot of the things I touched on above happened during those years. But, the league is on the right foot again and people should give it another chance.

[CLT Devil]

I sympathize with this sentiment, but the sheer number of games makes it impossible for even the most dedicated players to dive after every loose ball. You've got to pace yourself and take care of yourself in the NBA. If there were only 30-35 games in the regular season, I think the regular season would be far more similar to the college games in terms of visible signs of hustle (diving into the stands, floor-burns, etc.). You definitely see that in the playoffs and in high profile regular season games (or high stakes regular season games). What hurts the perception of the NBA are the multitude of games between teams with nothing really to play for except better odds in the draft lottery.

I agree with this sentiment, but there are a few players in the NBA who go all out every night, for instance Gerald Wallace on the Bobcats. To go with what you said, he's always dinged up or PUP because he goes so hard all the time. Currently he has a broken rib and collapsed lung after a brutal foul. I find it hard to watch the NBA for every game, but do enjoy ertain matchups/players.

[allenmurray]

Recently I have been watching more NBA than I ever had (something to do with having a 14 year old who loves basketball). I must admit that the level of play and talent is extraordinary.

I think I would enjoy it more if the NBA season was shorter. Then each game would be more meaningful and the players wouldn't have to pace themselves as much. However, given the large amounts of $ involved, I do not imagine we will veer see a shorter NBA season.

[Rudy]

I can tell you why I don't watch NBA games as much as I used to and why I watch college more than ever.

NBA individual play is terrific. Even some 2 player combinations, pick and rolls, are exciting to watch. But until playoffs come, there is very little offensive or defensive teamwork. If my home pro team were doing better I would probably watch more, but again this would be to see the individual play of players I follow, because I have grown to like them.

The 24 second shot clock is too short. It encourages one and one play.

Some might call it a weakness, but the unpredictability of college games appeals to me. When Georgia Tech can beat Wake, it means that players of lower talent can occasionally play over their heads and the higher talented players can let their own emotions get in the way of their talent.

[allenmurray]

The 24 second shot clock is too short. It encourages one and one play.

I agree. I enjoy watching teams work for good openings, run set plays, etc. The 24 second clock limits this. I actually would like to see College ball go back to a 45 second shot clock.

If I remember correctly the clock was 45 seconds for a few years, before changing to the current 35 seconds. During the time it was 45 seconds Villanova and Georgetown played one of the all time great NCAA championship games. The way villanova used the clock to slow the game and put themselves to have an extraordinary shooting percentage for that game was masterful bsaketball.

[devilirium]

The 24 second shot clock is too short. It encourages one and one play.

You stole my thunder here. That extra 11 seconds allows for more team play, and the offensive team to pull the ball out, get the signal from the bench, and then go at it. It almost functions as a huddle in football. It helps build the anticipation.

[calltheobvious]

I agree. I enjoy watching teams work for good openings, run set plays, etc. The 24 second clock limits this. I actually would like to see College ball go back to a 45 second shot clock.

If I remember correctly the clock was 45 seconds for a few years, before changing to the current 35 seconds. During the time it was 45 seconds Villanova and Georgetown played one of the all time great NCAA championship games. The way villanova used the clock to slow the game and put themselves to have an extraordinary shooting percentage for that game was masterful bsaketball.

The 1985 GU-Nova NCAA final was actually the last DI men's game played before the shot clock. 1985-86 was the first year of the 45-second shot clock. The clock was trimmed to 35 seconds for the 1993-94 season. Following that season a new rule was added that said that rather than break trend, it would continue to be the case that whenever there is a shot clock change, the Duke men's team and its fans shall have their collective heart unceremoniously ripped out during the NCAA Tournament final.

Which brings up an interesting question: if someone guaranteed such an end to this particular season, would you take it? If the genie asked me now, I'd ask him to give me two weeks, then I'd decide.

[devildownunder]

Marquis de Sade
marquee matchup
:)

I'm not so sure he mistyped. Ever watch an old Celtics/76ers game?

[allenmurray]

The 1985 GU-Nova NCAA final was actually the last DI men's game played before the shot clock. 1985-86 was the first year of the 45-second shot clock.

Interesting. The way the game was played it was almost like there was a 45 - 60 second clock. The game never slowed to the ridiculous, but the pace allowed for incredibly strategic basketball.

[devildownunder]

I agree. I enjoy watching teams work for good openings, run set plays, etc. The 24 second clock limits this. I actually would like to see College ball go back to a 45 second shot clock.

If I remember correctly the clock was 45 seconds for a few years, before changing to the current 35 seconds. During the time it was 45 seconds Villanova and Georgetown played one of the all time great NCAA championship games. The way villanova used the clock to slow the game and put themselves to have an extraordinary shooting percentage for that game was masterful bsaketball.

I think 45 seconds is too long. 35 seconds is plenty. You have to get the ball into the front court in under 10 seconds or it's a turnover. that leaves 25+ to get a shot off. Really, what offensive set requires more time than that to set up for and run? Adding another 10 seconds back to the shot clock would just encourage more stagnant play with teams passing the ball around with no intent to attack or try to score for 10 or 15 seconds out of each possession.

[devildownunder]

I can tell you why I don't watch NBA games as much as I used to and why I watch college more than ever.

NBA individual play is terrific. Even some 2 player combinations, pick and rolls, are exciting to watch. But until playoffs come, there is very little offensive or defensive teamwork. If my home pro team were doing better I would probably watch more, but again this would be to see the individual play of players I follow, because I have grown to like them.

The 24 second shot clock is too short. It encourages one and one play.

Some might call it a weakness, but the unpredictability of college games appeals to me. When Georgia Tech can beat Wake, it means that players of lower talent can occasionally play over their heads and the higher talented players can let their own emotions get in the way of their talent.


I think the degree of teamwork you see from NBA teams varies tremendously. The good teams display quite a bit of teamwork, offensively and defensively. It's what makes them good. And that's not just for marquee matchups.