NCAAM teams
John Gasaway, ESPN Insider 6y

Don't let the off-the-court mess fool you, college hoops has some game

Men's College Basketball

Louisville is reeling; North Carolina is breathing a sigh of relief; Oklahoma State has reportedly received a subpoena; and top recruits are reportedly denying under oath that they accepted cash from Division I coaching staffs. Welcome to 2017 in college basketball.

The headlines are numerous, portentous and even damning. When a coach as vested in the current system as Bill Self says the current system has to change, you know you're dealing with fundamental questions.

But here's the strange part. The fundamental questions address who plays college basketball for which teams and how those players are selected and rewarded. In terms of the admittedly less weighty matter of what takes place once the ball is tipped off, however, the game has arguably never been in better shape.

Sound a little too rosy? Consider the NBA. For all the talk of space and pace at the next level, the same winds appear to be blowing through the college game, too.

Numbers are based on major-conference play.

(When taking the temperature of college basketball, I occasionally find it helpful to use data from major-conference play. Such numbers capture the most prominent 20 percent of D-I's programs, balance home and road games, and nullify scheduling mischief wrought by coaches in a setting where power is rather egregiously imbalanced. That being said, the numbers trotted out here are quite similar to the D-I-wide stats.)

The NBA and the college game encompass different cultures, different attitudes and, of course, vastly different business models and conceptions of eligibility. So how come the statistical trends in both versions of basketball have tracked each other with a fair degree of stylistic kinship over the past five years? Indeed, it's as if there's something in the basketball air on the North American continent.

True, the winds of change were helped along in D-I by the NCAA's introduction of the 30-second shot clock before the 2015-16 season. The shorter shot clock had an immediate impact on the pace of play, and a jump in scoring followed in the wake of those additional possessions.

Nevertheless, scoring in the college game has also increased on a per-possession basis. It would appear those stodgy and oh-so-familiar D-I coaches are drawing on many of the same stylistic lessons as their ever-changing and innovative NBA counterparts.

In fact, I can think of at least three additional (and pace-neutral) ways in which the college game has improved its quality of play in recent years.

First, and most obviously, college teams are shooting more 3s than they used to. Broadly speaking, and with due allowance for individually differing cases, this change makes good basketball sense and (to this fan, at least) results in a more aesthetically pleasing product.

In league play last season, a major-conference team attempting 100 3-point shots would have scored, on average, 108 points. Meanwhile, the same number of 2-point attempts would have netted that team 100 points. That eight-point margin will, until further notice, constitute something of a green light on 3s from the hoops gods.

Second, that eight-point margin is all the more noteworthy because college teams are much better than they used to be at making shots inside the arc. Still, head coaches in the major conferences understand that 2-point jumpers -- although unavoidable and sometimes even necessary -- are in fact the sport's least rewarding shot attempts.

As a result, such attempts are on the decline. Per Hoop-Math.com, D-I's median rate for 2-point jumper frequency has dropped by 13 percent since 2012-13. With every passing season, more shot attempts occur either at the rim or from beyond the arc. That shot distribution is a recipe for more scoring.

Lastly, all of the above has taken place against the backdrop of a foul rate that has ticked slightly downward in major-conference play over the past five years. This, in effect, constitutes a very important dog that hasn't barked in the college game.

As recently as the 2013-14 season, it was thought that perhaps the only way for the NCAA to inject more scoring into the college game was to have officials call more fouls. That actually worked (scoring went up that season), but the problem is simply that, well, free throws are boring to watch. It's been very good news over the past three years, then, to see that scoring can in fact increase markedly without the sport being turned into a free throw contest.

So, as you read the ominous and even dire headlines that currently dominate college basketball, here is a reminder: The stakes really are as large as everyone says. For, if the powers that be in the college game can somehow straighten out things in terms of arrangements off the court, there's every reason to believe the sport's future is bright in terms of sheer quality of play.

^ Back to Top ^