College Basketball Returns to Old Form? (Article)
 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...form/24486735/

"Across the board, from what I've seen, we're back to where we were, which is probably what it needs to be," Ohio State coach Thad Matta said.

Thoughts?

Based on my observations, I agree completely with the article. Scoring isn't fun if it's all FTs. And considering how poorly some players shoot FTs, that makes it even worse.

If we want to keep freedom of movement intact while increasing scoring at the same time, we probably need to consider adjusting the 7/10 thresholds for team fouls and decreasing the shot clock. If I'm an official, then I can just call a foul and administer a throw-in, and then at most it will be another 24 or 30 seconds until something new happens.

They, and you, are missing the point of changes. If ALL officials will call it, the players will stop doing it (they want to keep playing) and the FTs will return to the number they were before. The problem comes when only some change and others refuse. They players don't know what to do and will pick up extra fouls.

Making the shot clock shorter will probably increase the number of fouls as there will naturally be more attempts to get to the basket (where many fouls happen) in a game.

Officials call the game the way their assignors want it call...whom in turn have to answer to AD's who listen to their coaches whine.

Yup. And therein lies the problem. Unless we become like federal judges with lifetime appointments, we will ultimately do what those who have the power to hire and fire us want us to do.

While it's noble to think that the game would become cleaner if all officials subscribed to the same philosophies, that's a pie-in-the-sky vision. The last two years have been a case in point.

All things move toward equilibrium. After this freedom-of-movement experiment I think we now know where college basketball equilibrium lies. The next thing we need to do is adjust some rules (stress the system) and see if we end up with a new and more favorable equilibrium.

I have not seen any major changes to the way the game is called. I have seen players adjust to the game and coaches still over managing the games which have affected scores. I think officials as usual are being scapegoated for what other issues are taking place in the game.

Peace

The problem ISN'T that the Assignors work for the AD's who do want the coaches want....

The problem IS that the 32 D1 conferences that utilize 20+ DIFFERENT assignors that want plays/situations handled differently. The NBA has ONE assignor.

As a result, ALL the officials in the NBA call the game in a relative uniform manner...whereas the college game is a much different story.

Once the NCAA has a central leader/group that makes ALL assignments for college games, THEN it can hold officials accountable and meaningful changes on a national-scale can be implemented (because if an official doesn't do what they are asked...they simply will stop being asked to work ANY games).

Until then...it's simply a "crap shoot" as to whether any official actually decides to change.

Wild oversimplification solutions:

A) If you want one vision then have 1 vision. You need a centralized voice and leadership not just suggesting officials do things a certain way but assigning and determining official development.

B) If your game can have a minimum of 68 possessions and you can make changes to make it have a minimum of 100 that seems to give you more chances to score.

C) Officiate the rule book with support and direction from the your centralized officiating body/office. If the rules get called without input on interpretation and types of game by coahes/AD's and conferences, then quality/type of player required to play in those games effectively changes.

D) Combining B+C drastically impacts style of play.

E) B through D + the elimination of live ball timeouts to negate even more coach control, you almost have a basketball game with players out trying to make plays instead of grind their way to tight ball games.