I disagree with the premise of this article. Completely. To agree with it, one has to admit college basketball is entertainment first and foremost. Having played basketball at the high school and college levels, I can say that the game I love is just as competitive (no, more so) than when I played. It is played with more intensity than ever. Guys are not sleep walking for 20 seconds of every possession, then finally running a futile ball screen to create a pick and pop. One thing I agree about is that defenses are better. Players are spending more time in the weight room and are bigger and faster. That is not opinion. It's fact. When I played there seemed to be a lot of room on the floor. I could almost always count on being open in the corner about where the 3-point line is today. Those shots are contested attempts today. The top of the key was considered a long shot, and that is about five feet inside the current 3-point arc. The better overall defense is the factor limiting scoring.
The median points per minute in the NBA this past season was 2.1 points. This stat is boosted by the official ban of the zone defense. And the best offensive players in the world. In the ACC, three teams averaged right at 2.0 ppm. One was Duke; the other two were Notre Dame and UNC. Virginia averaged 1.6 ppm and won the ACC by playing 3M 5200 defense. Before Justin Anderson was lost (essentially) for the season, I thought Virginia was the best fundamental basketball team I had ever seen. And they made their success by keeping the other team from scoring more points than Virginia. ppm and ppg just did not matter. Wins and losses are what mattered.
There is one thing the NCAA could do to improve scoring without changing the game's basic rule set. The biggest difference between NBA scoring and NCAA scoring is the zone defense. Outlaw that and you will see ppg increase overnight. Changing the size of the court would give players more space and help the offenses, but it would upset the the game itself. So would other suggested changes. The question as to whether those changes would actually improve the game is an open one.
But it all comes back to this issue. Is a 100-95 game a better game than a 55-50 game? Are the players less or more committed to win? Are the coaches in the 100 point game doing a better job than the guys in the 50 point game? The writer takes the premise that more points mean a better game as an article of faith. I think he is wrong. As a basketball fan I do not care if media guys get better TV ratings with high scoring games. I want good basketball. And, defense is a huge part of good basketball.
All that said, I think the writer may have watched too many Ga Tech games the past four years. We averaged 1.3 ppm.
