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

Thoughts?

Tom Izzo on the 35-second clock: “I would like to see a change” | CollegeBasketballTalk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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...

It is the same sport, but not in how the game is coached. There is much more ball movement and player movement in NCAA basketball. That has been the case as long as I can remember. Many teams do not even use the pick and roll in college at all.

Peace

That may be true as"long as you can remember", but stop looking at 15 years ago and think only of the games in the last two years or so...in fact, think of just the Final Four this year. Think of how many times Michigan pulled one of their posts out to set a high screen for the point guard against the 2-3 zone.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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

It's A Sticky Wicket ...
 

... or cricket.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.