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

[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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

You're mixing up two completely different issues, both of which independently have an effect on scoring. If a team doesn't want to score quickly, sure, they'll take a long time. I wouldn't say that is most teams. But, at the same time, if that team could get a good shot quicker, they'd take it. Getting that good shot quicker just might happen if they know the defense wouldn't be permitted get away with so much contact....but they wait until they can get a clean shot without risking contact with a nocall.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

You miss the point, it will NOT lead to more fouls being called. That is the fallacy. When games are called tighter, consistently, the players will adjust and not commit any more fouls. Most players are coached to play as aggressively as they are allowed such that they may get 2-4 fouls but try to avoid 5. If the game is called tighter and they expect it, they don't play as physical. As a result, you'll end up with a similar number of FTs, the game doesn't get any longer, the offense opens up, and the scores go up by 10-20 points.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're mixing up two completely different issues, both of which independently have an effect on scoring. If a team doesn't want to score quickly, sure, they'll take a long time. I wouldn't say that is most teams. But, at the same time, if that team could get a good shot quicker, they'd take it. Getting that good shot quicker just might happen if they know the defense wouldn't be permitted get away with so much contact....but they wait until they can get a clean shot without risking contact with a nocall.

Well you are not going to get a clean shot when defenders are willing to defend your ability for that clean shot. And you are not going to get a clean shot when the only shots most players are willing to take are 3 pointers and layup-dunks at the basket. Big men almost never take the 10 foot shot anymore like Patrick Ewing. When you take contested shots, you will have contested defense.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You miss the point, it will NOT lead to more fouls being called. That is the fallacy. When games are called tighter, consistently, the players will adjust and not commit any more fouls. Most players are coached to play as aggressively as they are allowed such that they may get 2-4 fouls but try to avoid 5. If the game is called tighter and they expect it, they don't play as physical. As a result, you'll end up with a similar number of FTs, the game doesn't get any longer, the offense opens up, and the scores go up by 10-20 points.

But they haven't adjusted yet. There are a lot more perimeter fouls and the game the scoring went down this year. All I am saying is offensive concepts have changed. And if teams like Michigan and Louisville were to play the up tempo style, I think you would have more scoring. And it would help if teams took more mid-range shots that often are open because everyone is defending the 3. I do not even believe in the "call the game tighter" as fouls are only fouls when a player is put at a disadvantage. Offensive player put their heads down and go to the basket as if no one is suppose to defend them. I do not think we should just call fouls because there is contact and the defenders did nothing wrong. If anything there are more fouls on offensive players that were usually called blocks on the defense. It is time for players to deversify their game and not every play has to be a highlight or dunk.

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.

[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.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not trying to overestimate the importance of 5 seconds, because I'm talking about 11 seconds. The difference this and the back court time make is in the tactics offense and defense must use to move the ball and get shots. If you take your max time getting up the floor and try to pull back when stuff doesn't go correctly your remaining possession is going to be with less the 10 seconds to shoot. Not 20+ seconds to run offense.

My point is that defense locks into sets, and players who are limited in what they are allowed to do and where they are allowed to go. Defense is defending habits and weaknesses. The longer teams hold the ball and play chess the more time and opportunity for physical play increases. Shots or creative plays that ead to more shots or turnovers you need to increase pace and scoring.

No one is complaining about contact in transition. Most plays vs good defense end up with a 1 on 1 battle or ball screen attack late in the shot clock anyway. If the majority of the game is played in those two situations instead of the space in between you get more shots, more pace, less lock in and lockdowns. It requires players with more creativity, freedom, and shot making ability to be on the floor. It changes how teams play, recruit, coach . . . etc.

You give Wisconsin a 24 second shot clock and a 90+ possesion game, and see how they play and who they put on the floor. My feeling is the game is too physical because phsyical play happens mostly in confined spaces of the front court as teams compete for a particular spot/screen that coaches want them to get. If the game was faster, with more universally skilled players, more kids with the freedom to make decisions and attack (along with the skill sets to do it) along with the need to get shots faster and invariably from a variety of players and paces most of the other issues change/go away.

The point was made that if you look at classic games shots that were taken would be considered "bad" shots now because teams can run offense to get better looks for better players. If the rules made/allowed those shots to be "good" or at least required and there wasn't a chance to work for a better one, then wouldn't that increase scoring and required skill on the floor to make those plays and shots?