@ralster
You make good point about players having bad days and the team losing. This is one of the reasons why I feel the regular season conference title is important and valuable since it represents overall competence over 18 games played over and extended period of time, and even when a player or players have bad games that result in loses, the overall performance and consistency of the team over the course of the season determines the conference championship. The Big 12 had 7 teams that at one point or another were ranked in the top 25 (several in the top 10) and they all had "slumps," and KU ended up being the more consistent team and winning the regular season title. Most reputable publications that have generated rankings for college basketball programs consider the regular conference title as a very important part of the equation. Some posters in this forum consider the national championship to be the "be-all, end-all" criteria when judging a program overall success; obviously I do not.
The NCAA tournament, on the other hand, is very unforgiving and crams several games in a short period of time; one bad game and you are gone. Look no further than this year where the two finalist were teams ranked #7 and #8. One could argue that at least Kentucky was under rankle, but neither one of the two teams was ranked in the final poll prior to the tournament. Are UConn and UK the best two team in College BBall? the answer is no, but the last poll of the season lists them as #1 and #2.
Look at the KU team that won the title in '88. If that tournament is re-played 100 more times, KU probably does not win it again. I was a magical and unlikely ride, when the start aligned correctly and at the right time for KU, and included wins against teams such as KSU which had beat KU twice handily earlier, and our only win was by one point, and OU, which also beat KU twice during the season. Was KU the best team in '88? The answer is absolutely not, but if finished the season ranked #1 anyway. Or even the '08 title season, when if not for Mario's miracle shot, KU does not win the title. There have also been several KU teams that could have and maybe should have won the title but did not because one less than optimal; performance. This is the nature of the tournament, survive and advance, and the best team does not usually win the title; there is a lot of truth to the "March Madness" moniker.
As far as defense. I contend that the new contact rules affected disproportionally teams, such as KU, that played and depended on tough man to man defense. Teams that did not play defense and relayed on penetrating offenses benefited greatly from the rule, since every time the penetrated and missed they usually ended up at the free throw line. Look at the best defensive players KU had this past season, Wiggins and Embiid, both are players that did not have to change the way they played defense since it was their first year. Players like Tarik Black, on the other hand, ended up collecting fouls like crazy, since they had to change the way they had always played in the past.
As far as changing the OAD rule, I favor the baseball model that allows a player to go straight to the NBA from HS, but if he goes to college, then he must wait 3 years. The advantage of this rule is not that it prepares players better for the NBA (which it indeed does), but it gives athletes the opportunity to complete the majority (or all) of the requirements for a college degree, and considering how few make it o the NBA, it gives the student-athlete a better chance in life if basketball does not work out.