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

[VaTerp]

I'd be in favor of NCAAM going to a 30 sec clock but it's not that big a deal to me personally.

What I found interesting is the sentiment among the NCAA coaches that their game is more physical than the NBA.

The Bilas thread on this subject had differing opinions but seems like many of the coaches agree with him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'd be in favor of NCAAM going to a 30 sec clock but it's not that big a deal to me personally.

What I found interesting is the sentiment among the NCAA coaches that their game is more physical than the NBA.

The Bilas thread on this subject had differing opinions but seems like many of the coaches agree with him.

The funny thing is, the college coaches have far more control over how this is called than the NBA coaches do. If they were serious about getting it called tighter, the coaches from Michigan and Michigan State would have significant say in making it happen.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

The funny thing is, the college coaches have far more control over how this is called than the NBA coaches do. If they were serious about getting it called tighter, the coaches from Michigan and Michigan State would have significant say in making it happen.

True indeed.

For all the talk of wanting more freedom of movement, a guy like Pitino is going to be bitchin when one of his starters has to sit with 3 early fouls on the perimeter.

[JetMetFan]

The one that stuck out for me was Beilein saying he teaches the contact. I know we say it and we definitely can tell it happens but that's really telling.

I had a GV (yes, girls' varsity) game this season where I hear the coach tell his kids during a time out, "You've got to get into them! Bump the cutters when they go through the lane!" Coming out of that time out the first girl on the other team to pass through the lane gets chucked...hard. And yes, the whistle blew.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

True indeed.

For all the talk of wanting more freedom of movement, a guy like Pitino is going to be bitchin when one of his starters has to sit with 3 early fouls on the perimeter.

It's like the "hot stove" touch on the dribbler for NCAAW. It's in the book. We see it every preseason in our officiating video. Of course if we actually call it, the coaches get ticked off.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'd be in favor of NCAAM going to a 30 sec clock but it's not that big a deal to me personally.

What I found interesting is the sentiment among the NCAA coaches that their game is more physical than the NBA.

The Bilas thread on this subject had differing opinions but seems like many of the coaches agree with him.

I know during the tournament I saw a lot of contact allowed on dribblers on the perimeter.

[twocentsworth]

The Rules Committee can make all the changes it wants to the Rules of the Game...NOTHING will happen until the enforcement of the rules by the game officials changes (they HAVE to start calling the game differently).

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).

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

[JRutledge]

I think the game is over coached. You can change the shot clock or call more fouls, that is not going to change that a coach will not allow his team to get out and run or shoot at will. I saw Michigan play all year and they had very little problem scoring a lot of points because they were coached to run on most rebounds and steals. That is not how the game is played much anymore and calling fouls is only going to send people to the foul line. It is not going to help anyone score more. Even the shot clock is not going to change much if players are not prepared to take good shots.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Imo, changing the shot clock will not make NCAA basketball "better" or more fun to watch. I hardly watch NCAA ball anymore because it really is not that much different from NBA ball, which I can't stand.

If I want to watch 350 high pick-and-roll plays, I will watch an NBA game.

If I want to watch one guy try to go one-on-5 for 20 seconds and then jack up an off-balance 3, I will watch an NBA game.

NCAA games used to be interesting because different teams brought different styles of offense to the game. Now everyone does the same thing, and that's all the same as the NBA. It's boring.

Why was Syracuse able to cause so many problems with their 2-3 zone? Because none of these teams run an "offense" - they just want to have an isolation play and let that guy try to "create" a scoring opportunity.

It has nothing to do with the shot clock. It has nothing to do with the officiating. It is coaches who want to run what the NBA coaches run.

Again, just my opinion.

[JRutledge]

NCAA looks nothing like the NBA in style, sets run or the type of defenses are played. You cannot run a 2-3 in the NBA the way you do in college.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

NCAA looks nothing like the NBA in style, sets run or the type of defenses are played. You cannot run a 2-3 in the NBA the way you do in college.

Peace

Actually, they are very similar in a lot of the things they do...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the game is over coached. You can change the shot clock or call more fouls, that is not going to change that a coach will not allow his team to get out and run or shoot at will. I saw Michigan play all year and they had very little problem scoring a lot of points because they were coached to run on most rebounds and steals. That is not how the game is played much anymore and calling fouls is only going to send people to the foul line. It is not going to help anyone score more. Even the shot clock is not going to change much if players are not prepared to take good shots.

Peace

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.

[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

[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.

[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.