Izzo & others on shot clock/adding more offense...

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I have been watching college basketball a lot longer than 15 years. Not sure you know how old I am, but I am not in my 20s.

Also Michigan in the semifinal scored 61 points and would have scored 70 or more if you just consider FTs missed.

And they really scored points in the Championship game with the score 82-76.

Peace

Don't give a rat's rear end how old you are.

And how many points were scored in the championship game has nothing to do with the original points I brought up, so who cares...

To review...Imo, the NCAA game has become too much like the NBA game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If more fouls were called, the game would open up for the offense and scoring would go up. You wouldn't shoot any more FT's after the initial adjustment because the teams/players would adjust how they play defense. They want to stay on the floor and will stop fouling. It is a fallacy that calling a tighter game (if everyone does it) makes the games a FT contest. It actually can make the game a great game.

I just disagree. I think foul calls are not going to open up anything if the teams are willing to play a certain way and use a lot of their bench. If you call fouls all you will do is make FTs the difference and I do not see FT shooting so good that teams feel it is not worth a try on plays to that way and raise scoring significantly. And one way that the NBA is totally different than the NCAA, players in college try to take charges.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

The game officials won't call it differently until there is uniform accountability across the country (right now each assignor sets the "standard" in their league).

What rules aren't being enforced due to different coordinator's philosophies?

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Uniform accountability will NOT occur until there is one person/entity overseeing officiating nationwide.

I would say this is never going to happen, but never say never... So, I will say: This is extremely unlikely to happen any time in the near future. (Assuming by "overseeing" you mean "assigning", which I believe is a fair assumption since John Adams does have "oversight" of officiating nationwide already.

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Currently, John Adams, NCAA Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officiating, can only control who/how the NCAA tournament if officiated. When he, or someone else in his position, has control of regular season assignments, THEN the game will be officiated differently.

The NCAA controls the tournament because it is their tournament. Conferences control their conference games because it is their conference. Coaches / schools agree which officials to use for non-conference games because those schools have control over those games (generally they agree to use the home conference officials, but not always).

It's all about control — and there is more interest by the conferences in being able to control their own product than there is in nationwide uniformity. Not that conferences do not want to have consistency around the nation — I just don't think they are willing to give up their control to see that happen.

[JRutledge]

I think there is a push to have regional supervisors that might assign or have 3 or 4 conferences involved where the NCAA oversees those supervisors or assignments. But that might be a guess on my part. I know some at the NCAA level want that kind of system.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just disagree. I think foul calls are not going to open up anything if the teams are willing to play a certain way and use a lot of their bench. If you call fouls all you will do is make FTs the difference and I do not see FT shooting so good that teams feel it is not worth a try on plays to that way and raise scoring significantly. And one way that the NBA is totally different than the NCAA, players in college try to take charges.

Peace

Disagree all you want but a lot of the higher scoring games I've seen have been that way after the officials start the game calling it tight. The defense cleans up their tactics to avoid fouling everyone out and the offense gets more and cleaner scoring opportunities which leads to higher points.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Disagree all you want but a lot of the higher scoring games I've seen have been that way after the officials start the game calling it tight. The defense cleans up their tactics to avoid fouling everyone out and the offense gets more and cleaner scoring opportunities which leads to higher points.

OK, but that is not going to change my opinion on the issue. I watch a lot of college basketball and scoring is more about style or how much teams want to run and shoot than anything. Foul calling is not keeping teams from scoring when most teams want to slow the game down like Wisconsin who loves to use a lot of the shot clock and play for the perfect shot. And nothing you are going to do to make a team like Wisconsin play up tempo and try to score more than in the 50s.

And when I watch games and listen to the commentators, they complain all the time about the fouls that are called. There are certain guys that make every negative comment about when a hand-check is called and complain that was "cheap" or not appropriate. And then complain about the amount of fouls called. You really think guys like that are going to be OK with more fouls being called? I am sure there are coaches complaining to when their star point guard has two quick fouls in the game. I am not so convinced that more fouls is going to equal more scoring.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If more fouls were called, the game would open up for the offense and scoring would go up. You wouldn't shoot any more FT's after the initial adjustment because the teams/players would adjust how they play defense. They want to stay on the floor and will stop fouling. It is a fallacy that calling a tighter game (if everyone does it) makes the games a FT contest. It actually can make the game a great game.

Here I am being wishy-washy. I agree with Camron's point but I can see where JRut is coming from as far as coaches being too controlling. I mean, two of the highest scoring teams in D-1 history ('89-90 LMU and '76-77 UNLV) had coaches who just let them do their thing. That UNLV team wasn't dealing with a shot clock but it still managed to break 100 in 12 straight games.

As to Camron's point, I think getting fouls like hand-checking out on the midcourt area would eventually open up scoring because there would be more freedom of movement. Just for the heck of it I looked up some old games on YouTube and somewhere in the late 90s we (officials) started allowing kids to use their hands more on dribblers. I don't care how much stronger or more athletic kids are, it slows down an offense when players have to spend extra energy fighting through that contact.

[Pantherdreams]

I think all of these things are more connected then we often want to admit. The game is too physical but only because the defense has to spend an extended period of tiem trying to be perfect at coutnering someone else's tactics and disrupting the movement and pattern of that tactic physically is the simplest way. The offense is built, recruited and practiced to execute for certain players in certain places because the game is coach controlled. They have 35 seconds to run as many plays/sets as they want to get the bal where and when the coach wants it for a perfect shot and if they get in trouble the caoch calls Time OUt mid play to fix it or the momentum of the game. Coaches can exert that sort of control over the game because of the rules 35 sec shot clock , 10 seconds to cross have, live ball timeouts, ball can be thrown into the back court on inbounds, etc, etc. These rules are all a series of safety mechanisms to ensure that the offense can take care of the ball and do exactly what the coaches want.

I'm not saying its ideal but can you imagine the talent and athleticism of the NCAA game using Olympic/FIBA rules. 24 seconds to shoot, 8 seconds to get it over, only timeouts on dead balls, timeouts in the last 2 minutes advancing the ball, etc etc. More shots, more mistakes creating transtion opportunities, more need to have offesnively skilled players who can make plays, decisiosn and shots on the floor? The game would be fast enough that I think calling fouls is easier.

Most calls people say are missed aren't in tranistion, or calls on shooters. Its the action on the cutters, screeners, prolongated post ups and ball carriers attacking just to make entry passes (imo) that seem excessive. If teams are shooting early, the game is mostly played in transition or breakdowns first 7 seconds and last 7 seconds of the shot clock, and the players on the floor need to be more skilled and less physically imposing, then claiing fouls becomes easier and more consistent. Right now the majority of the players I see on the NCAA floor are skilled but are spending as much time in the weight room as they are at making jumpers and developing creative ways to finish and get shots off. They aren't shooters/play makers because for 21 seconds a possession that we're not running or attacking to score they are setting screens, cutting, posting up and trying to get someone else open. If the amount of time on offense you need to play at speed and create becomes more then the amount you can structure and dictate those types of players and tactics to deal with them become less viable.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Brad

What rules aren't being enforced due to different coordinator's philosophies?



I would say this is never going to happen, but never say never... So, I will say: This is extremely unlikely to happen any time in the near future. (Assuming by "overseeing" you mean "assigning", which I believe is a fair assumption since John Adams does have "oversight" of officiating nationwide already.



The NCAA controls the tournament because it is their tournament. Conferences control their conference games because it is their conference. Coaches / schools agree which officials to use for non-conference games because those schools have control over those games (generally they agree to use the home conference officials, but not always).

It's all about control — and there is more interest by the conferences in being able to control their own product than there is in nationwide uniformity. Not that conferences do not want to have consistency around the nation — I just don't think they are willing to give up their control to see that happen.

Rules not uniformly being enforced:
- bench decorum
- sportsmanship/taunting
- freedom of movement (hand-check/blocking of cutters/screening)

Simply watch the differences in games between Big East, Big Ten, and PAC-12 games....clear differences!

IF John Adams is able to eliminate the conference assignors and move to Regional Assignors (assigning games for ALL schools w/in a region regardless of conference affiliation), he will be able to hold officials accountable and improve nationwide consistency.

Whenever John sends out a notice of how he wants specific plays/situations handled, within hours individual conference assignors send emails to their staff that essentially say: "don't do it that way...here is how I want it handled in my conference".

[APG]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not saying its ideal but can you imagine the talent and athleticism of the NCAA game using Olympic/FIBA rules. 24 seconds to shoot, 8 seconds to get it over, only timeouts on dead balls, timeouts in the last 2 minutes advancing the ball, etc etc. More shots, more mistakes creating transtion opportunities, more need to have offesnively skilled players who can make plays, decisiosn and shots on the floor? The game would be fast enough that I think calling fouls is easier.

Sure can...that's the NBA/NBA D-League save for the timeouts bit.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not saying its ideal but can you imagine the talent and athleticism of the NCAA game using Olympic/FIBA rules. 24 seconds to shoot, 8 seconds to get it over, only timeouts on dead balls, timeouts in the last 2 minutes advancing the ball, etc etc. More shots, more mistakes creating transtion opportunities, more need to have offesnively skilled players who can make plays, decisiosn and shots on the floor? The game would be fast enough that I think calling fouls is easier.

One thing that needs to be taken into account is the rule book covers all levels of NCAA basketball (NCAAM in this case). What's good for the top level of D-1 where kids are trying to go pro may not necessarily be good for some mid-level D-3 player. Since the overwhelming majority of players aren't going to be pro players the rules are going to skew towards them.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

One thing that needs to be taken into account is the rule book covers all levels of NCAA basketball (NCAAM in this case). What's good for the top level of D-1 where kids are trying to go pro may not necessarily be good for some mid-level D-3 player. Since the overwhelming majority of players aren't going to be pro players the rules are going to skew towards them.

I can't disagree, though I'm not sure what this means. The game should be slower and lower scoring so lower level basketball and athletes can play a more boring style more suited to low skilled play?

If middle school and jv girls can get the ball over half in 8 seconds everywhere except the US. Then I think the best young men and women on the planet can get it over in less than 10 or less than 30. I think a D3 kid and fan would rather have a more up tempo high scoring game too. Right now you have a system that rewards the creation of a particular product (large, athletic, coach controlled, grinding teams/athletes) all I'm suggesting is if you want an improved or different product use or adapt rule sets to encourage/reward that product.

[Adam]

I think you're overestimating the importance of 5 seconds on the shot clock. I don't see it having a lot of effect either way. If the coaches really want more offense, then the conference supervisors will need to have the officials lower their threshold for advantage.

As far as 8 vs 10 seconds in the BC; what difference would it really make? Of course they could, but why? What would the point be in making the change? Just to match the rest of the world? If we wanted to to that, we'd care more about soccre.

[JRutledge]

All you have to do is watch old games on ESPN Classic and watch how many shots are put up and when they are put up. Today those would be bad shots and not running and offense. Now when teams are deliberate it is somehow the official's fault?

And I do not see women's basketball with so much more scoring with their rules. I think this is like putting lipstick on a pig. They could add some rules but that is not going to change how much teams score if teams want to hold the ball. It is like you could change rules in football but if teams want to pound the rock all the time they are not going to score like the Oregon Ducks. And if I am not mistaken, Alabama won the National Championship doing just that.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

If we wanted to to that, we'd care more about soccer.

... or cricket.