At ESPN.com's Page 2, Skip Bayless tries to convince us that NBA basketball is better than college basketball. As he puts it, "When I flip back and forth between college and pro games, the difference in skill and athletic ability is as startling as the difference between men's and women's college games." In my eyes, his argument is absolutely ludicrous. The article came out on April 1, so maybe this is an April Fool's joke, but it sure doesn't read like one. It sounds like he actually believes what he is writing, so let's go through some of the points he makes:

"...don't gimme that old wives' tale...that pro basketball players play hard only in the last two minutes...I am astounded by how hard most NBA teams play – tip to buzzer, on both ends – night after night of an 82-game schedule." Okay, maybe this is an April Fool's joke. NBA players playing hard night after night? He obviously has not seen 99% of the Lakers' regular-season games after they won the title in 2000. They don't just take plays off, they take games off. And it's not just the Lakers, and it's not just regular season games (have you ever watched a visiting team coast in Game 2 of a playoff series after "stealing" Game 1 on the road?). Of course there are exceptions, but overall there is no comparison between the intensity displayed by college players and their NBA counterparts.

"...so many of the players who could be dominating this NCAA Tournament are already taking over NBA games. LeBron. Carmelo. Amare. Even Dwight Howard and J.R. Smith are already emerging as All-Star candidates." Look, athleticism is great, but that doesn't mean that NBA games are examples of good basketball. I mean, the fact that some of these guys are excelling despite lacking many fundamental basketball skills demonstrates that the NBA has been reduced to a showcase for individual feats, not inspired team basketball. And while I acknowledge the other-worldly athleticism of NBA players, don't sell college hoopsters short either. Did you see Maurice Ager's dunk over JJ Redick? What about Roger Powell Jr. getting a putback dunk off his own missed 3-pointer? There are still tremendous athletes in the college game.

"This year, the games have been the stars...The early-round results were far more amazing than the individual feats. Vermont beat Syracuse? Kansas lost to Bucknell?" What? These upsets are grounds for criticism? Did he actually watch the games? Did he experience the late-game drama? T.J. Sorrentine's 30-footer against Syracuse was one of the most entertaining basketball moments I've ever seen. These games involve less-heralded players getting a chance to prove themselves on a national stage. How is this possibly a bad thing from a fan's perspective? Here is his answer:

"As a basketball fan, I would have preferred to see if Syracuse would have been too talented for Michigan State, or if Kansas could have overcome Wisconsin." Right, because Michigan State playing Duke, Kentucky, and North Carolina just was not good enough. I can see how having to watch Vermont attempt two upsets in a row instead of a Syracuse-MSU matchup would create pain just too great to bear.

Regarding the college game, "The three-point line is so anyone-can-get-hot-and-shoot-you-in-the-heart close." Okay, this is perhaps his only valid point. The college distance allows less-than-stellar shooters to make 3-pointers. And it can lead to some "artificially-created" upsets because sometimes less-talented teams win simply because they were hot from the outside. But the role of three-pointer as equalizer also should be lauded, because it has created new styles of play, where certain teams use it as a primary mode of attack, a la West Virginia. And this leads to other teams having to adapt, such as Louisville abandoning its zone defense in favor of a full-court trap that allowed the Cardinals to take advantage of its superior athleticism. These tactical adjustments lead to intriguing, entertaining basketball.

"But if you live in a college hotbed without an NBA team – Louisville, for instance – you're probably wishing I'd go live in Albania. You're muttering to me that college basketball is so much more pure...I'm sorry, but your college team serves as your pro equivalent. The best players on your team probably wouldn't have chosen – or been chosen by – your school if they weren't basketball players. And some of them would have skipped Dear Old U. altogether if they'd been assured they'd go in the first round of the NBA draft." Obviously, there is some truth in this. But clearly, college players have a stronger allegiance to their institutions than do pro players, especially at the smaller schools like Vermont and Bucknell (yet Bayless has already said he doesn't want to watch these teams). Even at a school like Memphis that Bayless would consider a "pro equivalent", we see passion hardly ever exhibited in the NBA. When freshman Darius Washington slumped to the floor after missing those two free throws against Louisville, it wasn't because he was concerned that his future NBA stock was falling. It was because he let wanted to do all he could to help his teammates and his school win. You don't see emotion like that in the professional game.

"Yes, sometimes that [NBA] reality includes Latrell Sprewell... demanding a raise because he has a family to feed. Sometimes, it includes Ron Artest, the human technical foul, going after a fan in the stands and starting a riot. Sometimes, it includes the NBA version of Wally Cleaver – Kobe Bryant – committing adultery and being embroiled in allegations of sexual assault." His words, not mine.

Bayless also says NBA refs are better. He argues that on Patrick Sparks' controversial 3-pointer against Michigan State, the refs missed that he was fouled and took too long to make the call: "...they took more than six minutes to decide that the shot did indeed count for three points. Most NBA refs would have quickly and correctly called the foul and the foot." Sure NBA refs would have called it quickly. But they would not have looked at his foot; if it had been an NBA playoff game, first the refs would have to know if Kentucky was leading the series. If so, the shot counts - gotta have those playoff series go as long as possible. If the series was tied but the game was not Game 7, then the shot would count if Kentucky was the home team. Gotta appease the home fans, plus the opposing team has a chance to make up for it on their home floor later in the series. And if it was Game 7, then whether or not Lexington is a bigger media market than East Lansing would determine if the shot counts. We all know the NBA needs its big market teams to go deep in the playoffs.

Okay, this really isn't how NBA officiating works, but his point is rather idiotic. Is he really criticizing the officials for doing everything they can to get the call right? Plus there's no way to know for sure that NBA refs would have made the call in less time than the NCAA refs. And most importantly, WHO CARES. Yes, referees can impact the enjoyability of watching an individual game, but the difference in quality between NBA and NCAA officiating is not significant enough to systematically improve the entertainment value of one league over the other. They're just refs, Skip.

I know, different strokes for different folks, but overall, I just don't buy his argument. The NBA has better players? Of course. But they play just as hard and with as much passion as college kids? No way. And as far as the games themselves, the pro game typically features stagnant offenses and simple, boring defense. You rarely will see things like full-court pressing and motion offenses that make the college game unique and fun to watch. And while a 7-game series format might do a better job of preventing upsets, the NCAA tournament allows underdogs an opportunity to shine while still providing matchups between powerhouse teams. As far as I'm concerned, if the college season ended after the NBA's, I might not watch any pro hoops at all.