If you've followed college basketball for the last 15 years, its not difficult to notice this phenomenon. Major conferences have been realigned; rivalries have become lost; and most universities are now void of an identity. In addition, the "One-and-Done" rule has made a mockery of the NCAA-NBA relationship.
There was a time, however, when major universities had a basketball identity. The schools' identities were based on the visions of coaches. Coaches recruited athletes with a particular skill set to fit a mold, and team leadership cultivated and refined those skills to help develop the player and the program.
During the "team" era of college basketball, an upset by a mid-major (or smaller D-1 school) over a large state or private school was a rarity. It just didn't happen. Most large schools featured the best coaches and NBA prospects in their third or fourth year of eligibility, and the kids were simply more talented and more experienced than athletes from smaller schools.
Today, that has changed. The mid-major program now features the "team" mentality. Recruits starting in these programs are less athletic and, generally, less talented. but they are experienced (because they stay in school longer) and play as a unit.
Larger schools, on the other hand, feature the one-and-done kid who has no experience traveling during the grueling conference schedule, starting in a conference tournament, or facing the pressure of a single-game elimination NCAA tournament. Their skill set might fit into the competitive vision of the coach, but they are recruited as a means to a win. If you don't recruit one-and-done's at a major school, you're going to lose out on talent and, more than likely, lose your job. Development is a byproduct of the process.
So today, while most casual college basketball fans fill out their brackets and look forward to what they consider "upsets," I watch clips like these and reconsider the definition of the term.
