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

[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

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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?

I said if you look at classic games, players would take shots that were 10 or 15 feet regardless of how much offense was ran. The best example of this was in this Final Four. Mitch McGrary starting shooting a shot around the FT line against the Syracuse zone. He was wide open and took about 3 of those shots and made them in the Semifinal game. And McGary took that shot because the defense was doing everything to close out on the 3 point shooters of Michigan and left a hole open in the defense. If big guys alone started taking that shot, then the defense would have to close on them and open up other shots. The floor is only going to be open if a step or two inside the 3 point line are acceptable shots. The problem is offense have a "Three or nothing" mentality. Teams run much more motion offenses today than they did 30 years ago. Actually Indiana and Bobby Knight was one of the few that ran that kind of offense for years and now everyone runs that style of offense and hardly anyone runs the UNLV or LMU offense.

Just look at the Grinell offense where the goal is to shoot every 7 seconds and they score in the 100s often. There is a HS team in my area that runs that same fast offense and they score in the 100s too, but often are not very successful overall when it comes to winning. Why? Because teams choose to play with them and run and it is not unusual to have a game with more points than any other game you can officiate. And I also do not see necessarily less fouls, but teams make it their mission to score and take whatever shot is open.