Do you think Omar Samhan of St. Mary's is right?

He is partially correct however, this is by no means an original thought. Analysts stated the demise of great college basketball when Garnett opened the flood gates for straight to draft players. Soon after the composition of top tier teams began to change and for the most part they no longer had more than two NBA players in their rotation any given year(Title teams excluded). This is in complete contrast to lets say the 89 final 4(Mich,S. Hall, Illinois & Duke) in which had 7 NBA players in its rotation,1 hall of famer Rice & a super stud in Loy Vaught, and a guy sitting on the bench named eric riley (7footer solid NBA career) that could have got on the court just about anywhere else in the country. Now one may say title teams have not changed that dramatically, given the titles won by Carolina & Fla., but it's not the champion one should focus on. The 89 Illini had 4 NBA players, Duke had several and even the lower seeded teams from non-traditional schools had future NBA stars.

Other reasons for the decline in college hoops

1. Demographic changes- Baby boomers are the largest generation in this country so quite naturally the more players in the potential pool the stiffer the competition will be for success. For those who are old enough, ever wonder why there was a huge talent drop-off between 88-93 in the NBA? Aside from expansion(will discuss later), the middle portion of that generation retired in high numbers during that period leaving the tail end and the early birds of Gen X to fill the void.

2. NBA rules changes- David Stern, in his most infinite wisdom, began to degrade professional ball to its current form of organized streetball. This sent major waves through the product pipeline and the end result was coaches, from aau to the pros, changed their focus from players who understood the game and could execute at a high level to depending solely on length and athleticism. This approach is based on a belief system that athleticism and length can't be taught, but skill sets can. Who gets the high level coaching/ publicity in high school/college...You got it guys who can run and jump! We are still stuck in the "potential" era and I believe it will not change until the NBA has new leadership.

3. Garnett Syndrome- Because of Garnett's draft level and his success at the pro-level, even though his success was a sheer result of rule changes that made the sport purely athletically based, kids and their mentor's began to change how the practice their trade. No longer was it necessary to learn how to run a team if you were 6'1 nor was it mandatory to learn the intricacies of post play if you were 6'10. Players, under guidance of mentors, began to focus on attributes that would gain them the quickest path to riches. So you end up with kids focusing on athletic scoring and highlight reel antics on a continual basis. Add to this a new crop of coaches who specialize in promoting sheer athleticism in their offensive system and you end up with athletic non-skilled players matriculating through D-1 never developing any meaningful skills to benefit the level of play in the NBA. The draft comes and what happens??You got it, the end result of #2 kick in and GM/coaches draft kids on "potential".

4. I quote Randy Moss "Straight Cash Hommie!"- The last 20 years have seen an immense level of money pumped into top tier high school players. It has always been there, but in the past it was simply Alumni of perspective schools and bookies(trying to hook players) throwing in most of the money. Now it is multimillion dollar sports management firms and billion dollar apparel corporations that funnel money through the pipeline. Were does most of this cash end up? It's in the bank accounts of camp organizers, "mentors"(who magically live a high lifestyle with no real occupation) and street watchers. All of whom have a implicit desire to funnel their "pupils" through the system in the shortest amount of time to those who have supported them financially. This allows them to receive more funds from the corporate sources and finally get a payoff from the players. This simply adds more speed to an out of control system and amplifies the results of #'s 1,2 & 3!

Combine all of these factors (including the Samhan statement) and you get the current state of college ball.

*It's not by accident that Duke has not had that type of player since the early in the century. Coach K went the way of a lot of coaches when they reach his stature and has taken several years off from recruiting. Even this years team, which received an extremely fortunate tourny seed and south regional placement, is no where near the caliber of team during his prime. Most big time coaches go thru this as they love the to coach the game, but can no longer stand the indignities of recruiting. Dean Smith and Lute Olsen were rare birds from that standpoint. Both coaches were able to handle recruiting until the very end.

*2 Heck yea he's slacking just look at the talent level he brought in during the 80's & 90's and compare it to the stiffs he's recruited the last 8 years or so. He's not the only one Pitino has fallen off the recruiting map himself and that guy can sell Ice Cream to eskimoes in the middle of a klondike winter. Now look at their peers around the same age.

Roy Williams- Still gets NBA talent

Boeheim- Same

Calhoun- Same

Like I mentioned before most coaches go thru this for various reasons and coach K has hit the wall!

I agree about your assesment on their #1 seed and I would add Duke has received favorable press and seeds the last 20yrs. They are the Notre Dame of college hoops in terms of overhype.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. It's not just the 1-n-doners, it's all of the guys that leave prematurely. St. Mary's and their fellow mid-major schools may not get the top recruits but they do have the edge as far as experience and chemistry. What they may lack in athleticism or pure talent they can make up with maturity, strength, and intelligence. Chemistry is not something that can be created overnight. A team that plays well together as a cohesive unit can achieve a lot. That is why the US has had some troubles in international competition despite their huge talent pool.

I think all of the underclassmen going to the NBA is the reason why the Pac10 is having such a down year. The teams in the conference have been pursuing these high profile players and it eventually caught up to them. It is hard to build stability and chemistry when you have guys come in for a year or two and quickly jet to the NBA. UCLA lost Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, and Jrue Holiday to early entry. USC lost Mayo and DeRozan, Stanford lost the Lopez twins, ASU lost James Harden. It takes a while for these schools to retool and they never establish any continuity. Meanwhile these mid-majors continue to improve. I think this down year for the Pac10 may turn out to be a good thing. I think it might be in the best interest of some bigger schools to avoid the blue chip, 1-n-done type players and concentrate on the guys 1 tier lower. Recruit the guys that aren't assured careers in the NBA and build up the conference with teams predicated on chemistry, experience, and good coaching.

He's 100% correct. All of those teams have been playing together for 3-4 years as a whole; in which they've grown together as a team. Also a 23 year old graduate student (which many of them are) is the smarter basketball player, then say the raw 18 year old fresh out of high school who plays more like it's a street basketball game; then an organized basketball event.

I'm very glad to this effect in college basketball. Some of the best fundamental basketball being played in a very long time.

Yeah I didn't catch the interview but I can definitely see what he is saying. When Samhan came in as a freshman he was nothing more than an overweight punk. He still may be a punk, but he is definitely a ball player. It seems to also be true that a team full of seniors is more effective than a team full of freshman. (see UNC) However, I still wouldn't call this "uber-success" until one of the Mid Majors make a deep run. I have St. Marys in my elite 8, I hope its them!

Not really. The elite high school players are going to go to these big programs anyways, so I am not sure how shifting talent is going to cause anything to 'settle'.

I think it's because the media and Booyah network tend to overrate the big named programs and the big-names programs refuse to play neutral or road games against 'mid majors'.

If a big-named college team plays a mid-major, it is almost always at home.

There was only one exception to that this year, and it was UNC that played at College of Charleston because Roy Williams agreed to do a personal favor for Bobby Cremins. I know it was a down year for UNC, but they lost that game and it affected them the rest of the season.

That is why the NCAA tourney is so great. The good mid-major colleges, who are mostly players that were overlooked by bigger programs, get a chance to prove to the people that passed them over that they can ball on a neutral court and beat the so-called 'elite' programs that refused to play them anytime during the season.

I think experience is one reason

Not necisserily 23 plus since most of the players on these mid major teams even as seniors are younger than that but..

many of these Mid-Major teams are more experienced and play better as a group plus they're well coached and playing with a chip on their shoulders since the rest of the nation doesn't know too much about them.

It's also that some "BCS schools" aren't used to playing against some of the unconvential styles of basketball mid-majors schools play with and struggled with it.

I love seeing mid-majors pull upsets. It's what makes March Madness so great

He has a point this year. But that's because those teams have finally grown up and have experience. Next year those teams will lose all their players due to graduations and will be starting fresh. So according to him the mid majors will be successful in about another 3-4 years when their next crop of players get that experience again. It goes both ways. those teams need 3-4 years to be good.