As we inch toward another college basketball tournament (remember when March Madness actually finished in March?), Chuck Klosterman’s compelling, ambitious ranking of the top 50 college basketball players of all time deserves review — as does this piece below, which refines the matter for all time. Indeed, the foreseeable future won’t bring any changes because college basketball has come to be dominated by a serial collection of 1-and-done, unpaid contract workers whose impact on posterity is minimal, compared to those whose college “careers” lasted 3 or 4 years, not just 1.
When the ranking was first issued, back in 2011, it caught me unawares. By that time I had well developed my unlikely ambivalence toward college basketball. How else to judge its ever-lengthening regular season that, with each passing year, degenerates more brazenly into a tawdry exercise in mere broadcast-content provision? Ninety-five percent of Division I games these days are ultimately meaningless exhibition/cash-grabs leading up to an admittedly thrilling denouement, the NCAA Tournament, which can obscure, for one month each spring, just how ridiculous it is that these basketball “programs” are attached to, and wield such extraordinary fiscal and emotional power over, universities and their attendant communities. I won’t even get into the fact that all this money is being generated — for colleges, media outlets and corporate advertisers — on the backs, jerseys and computer-generated likenesses of unpaid laborers.
[For the record, I’ve transferred my hoop attentions to the unabashedly professional version of the game — for the same reasons Abraham Lincoln once threatened, rhetorically, to abandon his native country for Moscow: Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid, Lincoln wrote to his friend Joshua Speed, in 1855. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “all men are created equal except negroes.” When the Know-nothings get control, it will read, “all men are created equal except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.” When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.]
But there was a time in my life, from 1973 through the turn of the millennium, when I firmly and happily resided in the college basketball camp. Nothing so captured my sporting imagination in fact. As a middle-schooler, my friends and I devised a gaming scheme that pre-dated brackets: 32 teams in a brown paper bag, pull one for buck; if your team makes the Final Four you’re in the money. We closely followed teams from the old Yankee Conference and Eastern 8. I recall being devastated when one of those YC champs, Rhode Island, lost by a point in the 1978 NCAA Tournament — to Duke, which would go all the way to the Final (that Ram team, led by Sly Williams, was very, very good — Elite 8 good). The Big East took shape in 1979, when I was in high school, transforming (through the power of media exposure) players already known to us — Craig Shelton, Roosevelt Bowie, Corny Thompson, even Dan Calandrillo — from nice ballplayers into gods. In college I subscribed to something called Eastern Basketball magazine, written largely by a guy named Dick Weiss, whose life as it then appeared to me — covering college hoops 24/7 for junkies like myself — only strengthened my resolve to be a sportswriter.
Perhaps this is why Klosterman’s story struck such a nerve. It transported me to a time when I cared so much for college basketball, a time when the mendacity of it all wasn’t so striking, when perhaps the game wasn’t so shabby, or when I was naïve enough to believe it so. Chalk another one up to the palliative powers of nostalgia.
KLOSTERMAN’S LIST is preceded by several qualifiers, the rules of engagement as it were. The James Dean rule applies: Talent is the main criterion, but it helps to have died young. Most controversial but central to his working model is the idea that any player whose NBA stardom proved more “meaningful” than his college exploits is not eligible. Fair enough. If all were eligible, the Top 50 would too closely mimic the NBA’s Top 50 of all-time (issued in 1999), and what would be the point of that?













