Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner. You hit it right on the head. In my mind, there's been a bunch of kids who had Division I fundamentals from Montana who were passed over by in-state programs, particularly on the men's side, because they weren't prototypical Division I athletes.grizzh8r wrote:Notice how neither of these says anything about being a D-1 caliber SHOOTER. That's a huge part of the problem in all levels of amateur basketball right now is that kids aren't working on shooting the ball (other than from behind the arc). I was watching some hoops this weekend, and Jimmy Dykes alluded to this when asked why scoring is down in CBB. He said part of it is the football-mentality they use on defense now, preaching athleticism over shooting ability, etc.Colter_Nuanez wrote:In 21st-century Division I basketball, THE most important component to being a D-1 player if you are a man is having Division I athleticism. Everything else follows, but even in mid-major D-1, you must be a Division I caliber athlete if you want to compete.John K wrote:I guess my point is that the women have stumbled in the 2nd half of conference play for three straight years now, just like the men have been doing throughout Huse's tenure (although the women's slides haven't been quite as drastic, at least up until this season). Yet while Huse has been the subject of much criticism, with many fans feeling that he should be fired at the end of the season, it seems like the fans have given Binford a pass. People have cited a couple of reasons for the women's struggles, and those reasons may very well be valid. But regardless of the reasons, it's alarming when teams consistently start out strong, but then fall apart during the 2nd time through the conference schedule. Are we not recruiting the right type of players? Most fans seem to think that Binford has done a good job of recruiting, and that we have plenty of talent on the roster. Yet, people have been posting that we arent' physical enough, and don't have any good shooters. So tell me, if our players aren't physical and can't shoot, what exactly is it that makes them so talented then? It must be that either our talent is overrated, or that the coaching staff isn't doing a very good job of gettng the most out of the players, i.e. playing a style of ball that emphasizes their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.
On the women's side, THE most important factor is being a D-1 caliber competitor. Everything else follows.
I think another thing that has had a profound effect on college basketball is that losing doesn't hurt as much to this generation of players. It used to be you played your high school season with people you'd played with most of your life. Now, you play on various club teams and in AAU ball. You might play four games in a day. How bad does it hurt when you know you play again in an hour? How bad does it hurt to lose to someone who you are on a different club team with?
The pain of defeat doesn't resonate as much because it becomes entrenched.
Or because every kid here grew up in the "look at me" era of pro sports - we called LeBron James "King" when he was in high school, deserved or not. (Not getting into that debate). As Colter said, it's an AAU/play all the time/play frienemies culture. Athleticism and streetball style are emphasized and fundamentals, especially shooting fundamentals, are not.
)
