There might not have been any buzzer-beaters. There might not have been many overtimes (just one). There might not have been any games that didn't end with minutes of tireless free-throws and desperation heaves. But you know what? I'll take it. The games have been for the most part, well-played. There's been stretches of great offense and stretches of great defense. The blue-blood teams (save for Duke, which I'm bringing up just so we can laugh at them again) have dominated for the most part. The good teams have won, for the most part. The 2012 version of March Madness will probably be remembered for a spate of injuries taking out the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the field (Syracuse, UNC) and the dominance of the best team in the field. But to me, I will remember it for the most watchable basketball in a tournament since 2009. And the return of a lot of good teams for the first time since then as well.
From 2007-2009, we had 12 Final 4 teams and they were all good. They were all very good. They were all better than any Final 4 team from 2010-2011. The only Final 4 team from the past two years that comes close is the 2010 Duke team. Those years gave us the best team I have seen since I started watching College Basketball (about 2003) with the 2nd Florida team (Noah, Horford, Brewer, Green, Humphrey), the better two of the UCLA teams that went to three straight Final 4 (Westbrook and Love headlining the 2008 brew), a good Georgetown Team (Hibbert and Jeff Green), the Oden and Conley Ohio St team, the Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Green UNC team in 2008 and 2009, the Kansas national title team in 2008. Those were loaded years, the last few (or in case of 2009, the first) before the "one-and-done" took over basketball. Those teams would've easily beaten the 2010 and 2011 Final 4 teams on most days. I don't know if the 2012 vintage compares as a whole, but I think this is the strongest group of Final-4 teams since 2008. And that is a good thing.
Those (2007-2009) weren't great tournaments. There were few upsets (in 2009, all the #1-3 seeds reached the Sweet 16 and in 2008, all the #1 seeds made the Final-4), but there was really good quality basketball. It is hard to really have both (exceptions would be tournaments like in 2005). When the teams are good, and each region has 2-3 really good teams, the little guys are hurt. It is a lot harder for the VCU's and Davidson's to make their runs when the top teams are all very strong. And that is what happened this year. For once, it felt like I was watching teams that really had plans. When VCU made their run last year, it was mostly due to a string of crazy, un-repeatable three-pointers. It isn't hard to get hot for a couple games and hitting a ton of threes. Any team can honestly do that. What is hard is getting a game-plan and playing.
The reason I prefer the NBA to March Madness is just that the game is so much better. The drama might not be there (although good playoff games have the drama as well), but everything else is. I feel like people consider a good college game to be just one that is dramatic in the last 5 minutes, and the preceding 35 are mostly irrelevant. I think it is mostly opposite. A good NBA game is good for 48 minutes. Teams know what they are doing. They run competent offenses. You can see plays being run. You can see defensive schemes. Those things aren't always present in college, but I've seen a lot more of it this year than the past two.
To me, the first great game I saw this year was the Purdue-Kansas team. I'll talk more about Bill Self later, but that Kansas team, on a night where their offense couldn't do anything, just battled their way to beating a game Purdue team. The next good game was Indiana-Kentucky. Indiana played offense that really looked like NBA offense. To me, the tournament apexed with the past two late Elite 8 games, with Ohio St-Syracuse and Kansas-UNC. Both games ended with the winner pulling away late, but they were both intense, well-played and close throughout for about 35 minutes. They both featured teams switching and changing defenses. They both featured a lot of good players matching up against each other. UNC-Kansas had some of the most intense back-and-forth sequences in that 1st Half that I've seen. Both teams played inspired early, playing at a combined level that would give any great game over the years a run for their money. Their was an energy in the building that was palpable. It was everything great about college basketball in two halves. Great offense in the first, and great defense in the 2nd. It was a great game, that capped off a good first two rounds of the tournament. There are no cindarellas, but after 2011, I think we aren't really due for a Cindarella until 2014. I'll take four blue-blood programs that don't rely on hitting threes (in Kansas' case, just rejecting the idea of having the ability to hit threes) to win, but rely on great game-plans, good offensive sets and tough, tight defense.
Two More Points
1.) Kentucky is a great team.
They are easily better than any Final-4 team in 2010 or 2011. The last Final-4 team I can begin to put on their level is the 2009 UNC team, that had a really underratedly dominant tournament run (winning every game by at least 12, easily winning their two Final-4 games). What I love about Kentucky is that they play great team defense, really defend the paint, and are incredibly unselfish on offense. They remind a lot of a younger, more explosive version of the 2006-2007 Back-to-Back Florida team, in that there is no one true star on offense and they play so well as a team. Now, I think that second Florida team was better. They got a little bored in the middle of the season, but come tournament time, they were dominant and while they didn't really beat-down their Final-4 opponents they had to play two great teams (UCLA and Ohio St.). But I do think this is Calipari's best team. I don't know much about the Mass team from '96, but the '08 Memphis team was really good, and probably had one singular player better than anyone on this Kentucky team (I think Derrick Rose was better that year than Anthony Davis this year), but they didn't have the incredible depth of front-line ability that this Kentucky team has.
Kentucky did get a perfect set-up this year. They had their #2 seed lose in the first round (not that I think Duke would have really gave them much trouble), and had their two biggest competitors, including the one team that was neck-and-neck with them for #1 all year long, lose key players right before or during the tournament. I think they will win the title this year, but if there's any coach I would think could really pull off something massive, it is Rick Pitino.
One last thing about Kentucky - I heard a couple of media people say this earlier today, but Kentucky could absolutely not beat an NBA team. The discussion is a little more provocative this year because the worst NBA team (Charlotte) is particularly putrid, but still, Charlotte would crush Kentucky. Yes, it is true that Kentucky has a lot of future NBA players, but likely only two (Gilchrist, Davis) will ever be all-stars (Teague, in my opinion, is a nice player but not starter-quality for any competent NBA team). Kentucky wouldn't come close. No college team would come close. It might be a little more competitive than putting the worst NFL team up against the best college team (Alabama's defense was great in 2011, but they still wouldn't come close.
2.) I never want to hear about Bill Self and Kansas losing to low-ranked teams again, and that he isn't anything but a spectacular coach.
The fact that this team was even in the Top-10 all year long and got a #2 seed was incredible. This team lost four starters from last year's team. Their best two players this year were a back-up forward and the 4th best starter (Robinson and Taylor). They have no McDonald's All-Americans (Kentucky, I think, has 6 - UNC had 5, even without Kendall Marshall). Bill Self is a good recruiter. Kansas always has talent. They've definitely had more talent than those lower-ranked teams they have lost to (Bucknell, Bradley, Northern Iowa, VCU), but they haven't had the amazing talent than Calipari's Memphis and Kentucky teams had, or UNC had, or even Syracuse had (Boeheim doesn't get 1/10th the criticism for Syracuse routinely losing to lower-seeded teams since their 2008 Title). If there is anything to criticize Self for is that his teams have a penchant to get psyched against lower-seeded teams in the tournament. It isn't Self's fault. To me, unless a coach has a great offensive system, a coach's defensive abilities is a lot more important. Self's teams have always played great defense. Always.
I do think they do get psyched by lower-seeded teams. Get nervous. Their shots are off. That said, Bill Self's Kansas teams are 3-0 against #1 seeds now. They are always prepared to step up big. Their performance against a loaded UNC team in the 2008 Final-4 was incredible. Seeing that score of 40-12 was one of the more ridiculous things I've witnessed in my time watching college basketball. But nothing comes close to what he's done this year. His team didn't really fail to play their best against Purdue and NC State as much as they just weren't all that good. This isn't, on paper, a Final-4 worthy team with nowhere near the talent of the last two Kansas teams (especially that 2010 team). This was a team with a bunch of heart and calmness. They didn't get too disturbed by slow starts. They didn't get too nervous with close games. They finished games - reminded me a lot of Butler in 2010. They can play in close games, and I think they know the close a game gets the better their chances are. It will be interesting to see if they can take out Ohio St, who is definitely more talented, but I like their chances.
