Which is better: the NBA or college basketball?

Sporting News, The, Dec 15, 2003

A quick exercise to prove a point: Name the five best college basketball players. Can't do it? Don't worry, you are hardly alone. Now name the five best NBA players. It's a little easier, isn't it?

The fundamental difference between college basketball and the NBA is this: talent. The NBA has it; the NCAA has precious little. NCAA basketball thrived for three decades as an NBA minor league operating under the guise of academics and amateurism. Now that the NBA plucks players straight from high schools, or at least from the shallow end of the NCAA experience pool, college basketball no longer serves as the NBA's minor league, and thus has little talent worth watching.

In the NBA, the likes of Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James ply their trade. These are players who display that, at its best, basketball is a combination of creativity and athleticism within a team concept.

I've never been inclined to sit in front of the TV and marvel at how well a coach teaches a 1-2-2 zone. And don't tell me that college players are better at fundamentals--there's a reason the NBA is drafting one-fourth of its first-round talent from foreign leagues.

The magic of college basketball--the time-tested rivalries--is kept alive by fans, but the players themselves can't possibly develop rivalries. Any decent player is gone by his junior year. Carolina vs. Duke? Sixteen of the 29 players are freshmen or sophomores. What do they know about rivalries?

Give me the intensity of Garnett going against Tim Duncan; give me the cowbells at Arco when Shaq plays the Kings. You could give me Kevin Ollie vs. Milt Palacio, and I'd be happy

--Sean Deveney

The best means of discerning the difference between a college basketball game and one played in the NBA is not with your eyes but your ears. Listen. At Kentucky's Rupp Arena or Arizona's McKale Center, the noise is genuine--people cheering, screaming, beseeching their team to excel. At the United Center or Gund Arena, it's artificial. Somebody punches a button, and there's rhythmic clapping to make the game seem more interesting than it is.

The college game is better, too. There are almost as many ways to operate at the college level as there are Division I teams: zone, man-to-man, fullcourt pressure, fast break, walk-it-up. The 35-second shot clock

allows time for offenses to develop through more than one or two passes. NBA players have time for one quick action, and if it doesn't work, they force up an ugly shot.

College basketball players may be transitory, but the feeling they generate for fans is not. Carmelo Anthony was gone after one year, but Syracuse basketball was there before he arrived and will be there long into the future. So will the NCAA championship banner he helped hang.

The NCAA Tournament is not as true a means of determining a champion as the NBA's playoff system. It's way more exciting, though. It forces teams to be at their best or risk leaving the stage. The pros can throw out nearly a dozen clunker performances in the course of a playoff run and still claim the title.

The NBA owns one clear advantage over the colleges: The no-charge zone is great. But you know what? An NBA game isn't worth $75 a ticket or 2 1/2 hours of your time. Not when that time might be spent watching Florida vs. Louisville.

--Mike DeCourcy