NCAA Mania: Why NBA Is Much Better Basketball Than College Hoops

The Little League World Series is riveting television. You have 11- and 12-year-old kids throwing 60 or 70 mph, hitting baseballs 300 feet, and telling the world what their favorite flavor of bubblegum is or which superhero they would be in an alternate universe.

However, no one is deceived by it. It's a nice spectacle, a fun "cover," if you will, of the original. But it's not professional baseball. Danny Almonte is no Roy Halladay (though certain comparisons to Roger Clemens wouldn't be totally out of the question), and Andy Rios is no Alex Rodriguez. 

While the kids who play are talented, in love with the game, and bursting with potential, they are nowhere near their professional counterparts with their sloppy play, inconsistent results, and lack of physical maturity. No matter how much fun they have, they're not even close to the pros.

This situation is a mirror-image to that of the NBA vs. NCAA basketball. After watching two NCAA tournament games the casual NCAA observer is bombarded with gleeful rants such as, "Now this is basketball," or, "the NCAA is just so much better than the NBA." 

While an impartial observer can understand the thought processes behind these statements, their falsehood can no longer be hidden. The NCAA is most certainly NOT better basketball than the NBA.

The most potent argument supporting this assertion is based on talent alone. There are over 1,500 NCAA Division I basketball players this year. The NBA drafts 60 players per season, leaving somewhere around 1,440 of these college athletes to either compete overseas or move on to the career they prepared for in college. 

If the NBA were to draft only players from college, three percent of NCAA players would be drafted, and this doesn't take into account the 10-15 players every year that are drafted from the international ranks. When only 45 of the players competing in the NCAA are talented enough to even get drafted by an NBA team, there is an obvious disparity in talent.

Some would argue that one must look at the more talented teams and determine the level of play from that pool. Those who would follow this line of reasoning would assert that the NCAA Tournament, the collection of the best 37 teams (since 31 of them are automatic-entry), is the true showcase of the best basketball.

Applying the same numbers to the NCAA Tournament gives NCAA supporters better, but still very long odds. The players in the NCAA tournament are three percent more likely to be drafted, but only because of the polarity in numbers by shrinking the field in half. History shows that the real difference in tournament draftees vs. those not competing is a measly eight percent.

Many college players have dominated the NCAA and come into the NBA only to fail in their careers. With vastly more talented players, the NBA is a lock for being the better of the two "leagues" as far as the quality of basketball is concerned. However, there is one other argument that must be discussed.

For years so-called "basketball purists" have lauded the so-called "fundamentals" of the NCAA vs. the one-on-one, "selfish" approach of the NBA. Youth and high-school coaches tell their players to watch college basketball to see how a real team operates and to see basketball at a high level. The only problem with that line of reasoning is the premise that the "fundamentals" are what really matters.

In order to understand this argument, consider this analogy: Some people are born with perfect teeth. They are straight and beautiful, giving this lucky person a wonderful smile to flash at any and all times. Others are born with crooked teeth, and are therefore relegated to going through life with an ugly smile or fixing that ugly smile with something that forms their teeth into perfection by establishing boundaries.

NBA players are those that are born with the perfect smile. They have elite gifts that give them the ability to play basketball without boundaries. They don't always need set plays and a coach's artificial edifices to build them into a player. Most of them just...play.

Marginal players—which would describe most players at the college level—need a system to help them succeed, boundaries to allow them to be successful. They don't have that God-given gift, and therefore must work within a coach's system in order to become a productive player.

Contrary to the belief of many, NBA players are not disorganized, uncoachable show-offs. They work through progressions and sets much the same as college players, but those sets are specifically designed to showcase the physical greatness of which they are capable.

Instead of hiding weaknesses as NCAA coaches must do (since NCAA teams have, on average, .35 NBA-level players), NBA coaches release the amazing abilities of the athletes under their charge.

And why do young players learn these "fundamentals" that those "basketball purists" are so fond of? To play in the NCAA? To go overseas and play in Israel, Germany or Russia? Of course not!

Players practice and learn because they want to play in the most successful, visible and financially significant league in the world: the NBA.

Marginal players need to hone their shooting technique in order to be fundamentally sound so that they can be successful offensively. But try telling Shawn Marion that he needs to work on the fundamentals of his jump shot, and he'll wave his millions in your face and tell you he's doing just fine.

The NBA has the best basketball players in the world, playing basketball at the highest level at which it has ever been played. While youth and high-school coaches may gravitate towards college basketball because they can more fully connect with its limited talent, no impartial observer can honestly say that the NCAA is better basketball.

March Madness is one of the most wonderful times of the year. But just wait for the 2011 NBA Playoffs. "Madness" won't even begin to describe it.