Mark Cuban Blasts NCAA Basketball

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And not sure how any of the players are hurting from what the United States does. Not only do the players in this country dominate world competition, by far most of the best players come from the United States. LeBron James is the best player in the world and he did not go to high school with a shot clock. This tells me that the NBA does not know how to develop players properly and think a shot clock is going to help a player shoot or dribble better.

Peace

I agree that the best players in the world come from the US. THe method for creating them though is to create a massive base of players from a massive population base, then put them in competitive situations and the ones with the best combination of genetic advantages, socials advantages, opportunities, coaching etc end up as your elite. Very best in the world are created through a pyramid of competion that just filters off massive numbers of athletes along the way until you get to the top. The USA has a huge system, huge dollars and a massive population so this works.

If you look at the next three best countires in the world of basketball (Spain, Argentina, LIthuania) Spain and Argentina have slightly more people then California and Lituania has a smaller population then Conneticut. These countires clearly do not have the resources (genetically or population density wise) to get to this point following that model. So they've got different rule sets, different clubs etc. That have created a high level of basketball plaeyr skill wise but clearly without the athletic advantages of the USA so they can compete but often not get over the top.

I can't speak for Geno or Cuban or any of the the people who want to make changes to the basic basketball landscape or culture. Though the premise seems to be if you've got a model (rules set, developing athletes, coaching) etc that is creating athletes skilled enough to compete with the USA. That if the USA took its advantages and adopted some of those models or aspects you would end up with an even better result.

I don't think that Geno or Cuban is saying that USA isn't making the worlds best players, IMO they have a unique perspective to look out and over the entire system and see areas where you could be making more better players.

We all agree that is not the sole purpose of high school sport or college sport but just looking at developing basketball players they see various models and rule sets and probably like what they see so would see it as an improvement to the game. We as officials routinely comment on this board about rules and rule changes that we feel would make improvements and our perspective is often from that of officials or game management, not so often as stakeholders in improving the game as a whole.

[JRutledge]

How many players from Spain, Lithuania and Argentina are All-Stars in the NBA?

And the US has both a high school system and a club system that helps identify players from all over pro leagues to show who can play. But I would bet that those countries have much better soccer players that are world wide stars than basketball.

The game of basketball is dribbling, passing, shooting and defense. None of those things have anything to do with 5 second different on a shot clock. I do not think LeBron James or Kobe Bryant were hurt dramatically because they did not have a shot clock in high school. And even Kobe had to develop for his first several years in the NBA.

Peace

[APG]

Cuban had some interesting points...some even valid...but as been pointed out, one has to consider that some of what he said comes with the caveat of making things easier for his level of play.

But he's not the only one saying these type of things. It's not just the media. It's the coaches as well.

Replay and physical play are high on NCAA basketball rules agenda

One of the interesting questions from the article:

Adams, the outgoing head of officiating, said he believes officials like to call charges, but the mindset should be, if he's not sure the defender has met qualifications for one, he should call a block. That's not necessarily what's been happening.

But as is usual, it's easy for coaches/AD's (who make the rules) to talk the game during the offseason. When the lights are one, they are the first one to complain when their starting PG has picked up two quick ones for what they would deem "touch" fouls...and the first to go complaining to the media/whoever will listen.

[JRutledge]

But when you listen to people that watch the NBA, they consider it a wrestling match. And I certainly do not see it as any less physical than NCAA basketball.

Mike Greenberg has the last few weeks went on and on about how the game had too many whistles and said that had to change. Now they get a game with fewer whistles and everyone is complaining. And he has been one of the biggest

Jemelle Hill was a huge advocate for changing the block-charge play with an airborne shooter. The very next year the NCAA change the rule and had to change back the following year because of the mess that rule (advocated by many media members on ESPN and CBS) changed back to the rule.

Now we have these critics trying to change the game again, thinking that things like opening the lane or moving the 3 point line or calling more fouls or shortening the shot clock are all going to help the game. The main point I am making, is we have been down this road before. Let us not fall for the okey doke again.

Peace

[APG]

You're right in that there's a lot of noise from the media, (especially the stat showing the lowest scoring season in 60 years) but it's not just the critics saying this...you have coaches (who make the rules) saying some of this. But then like I said, the instance that some of the initiatives are put in...then implemented, the coaches complain...it's changed back...then you're back at square one.

If any of these rules changes are going to be implemented, they need to commit to them, and not change back after a year. For instance, changing the block/charge from airborne to upward movement...is a big change. Coaches shouldn't have expected it to be great after one year of implementing...but I have no doubt that after 2-3 years of adjusting to that standard and all that come with that 2-3 years (including breaking down tape...adjusting...implementing...then reassessing)...that the officials would more and more plays correct.

My point in all this is that it does these coaches no good to complain...then complain when these rules are implemented...then change back to what they were doing before...which in turn returns them to the issue they were complaining about before.

And if I were a betting man, I would say that you're going to see changes in the name of increasing scoring soon...you're going to see the shot clock to 30...you're going to see the RA put at 4 feet...I'd also bet you'll see the block/charge set back to match the NBA rule in the near future.

[JRutledge]

These rules could change and still not change the scoring. Players are too one dimensional. You will not have scoring go up if guys cannot make FTs or cannot shoot something other than a dunk or a 3 point shot.

I saw a kid this year in a high school game that consistently shot a mid-range jumper as a guard. He would drive hard to the basket and pull up for a wide open 10 to 15 foot shot. I was so amazed by this kid who was a freshman I even said something to the coaches about teaching that aspect of the game to him. They did not take credit for it and said that he did that mostly on his own, but they did not discourage him.

And coaches have to stop micro managing every game. Let there plays play without every possession having a play called or some kind of set being run. How about let the players make some decisions more than they do now.

Scoring is a lot more than rules changes. If you reduce the shot clock to 30, is not going to make someone be able to take a better shot or make better decisions. They still have to develop players to score more or to diversify their games.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And coaches have to stop micro managing every game. Let there plays play without every possession having a play called or some kind of set being run. How about let the players make some decisions more than they do now.

Scoring is a lot more than rules changes. If you reduce the shot clock to 30, is not going to make someone be able to take a better shot or make better decisions. They still have to develop players to score more or to diversify their games.

Peace

I agree with the micromanaging...which will be the last thing to change with the majority of coaches.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How many players from Spain, Lithuania and Argentina are All-Stars in the NBA?

And the US has both a high school system and a club system that helps identify players from all over pro leagues to show who can play. But I would bet that those countries have much better soccer players that are world wide stars than basketball.

The game of basketball is dribbling, passing, shooting and defense. None of those things have anything to do with 5 second different on a shot clock. I do not think LeBron James or Kobe Bryant were hurt dramatically because they did not have a shot clock in high school. And even Kobe had to develop for his first several years in the NBA.

Peace

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

That is the real difference....players having to operate more on their own. A slightly shorter shot clock would have very little difference. Relatively few possessions get into the last 5-10 seconds anyway.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

And what does any of this prove? The best players in the NBA are not international players. And I would suspect that just like in the case of those international players, they were also developed by their teams to run the offenses or to defend the way they wish.

And again, the rules changes are not going to prevent someone from learning how to better dribble, shoot, pass or defend.

Most of the contact rules are the same (until you get in the post) and the NCAA brought back the 3 point line (scoring is at a low) a few years ago. Some want to open up the lane, which I see little or no benefit for that when you cannot shoot any better or have no diversity to your game. And that also does not help if the coaches want to run clock or run their their sets multiple times.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And what does any of this prove? The best players in the NBA are not international players. And I would suspect that just like in the case of those international players, they were also developed by their teams to run the offenses or to defend the way they wish.

And again, the rules changes are not going to prevent someone from learning how to better dribble, shoot, pass or defend.

Most of the contact rules are the same (until you get in the post) and the NCAA brought back the 3 point line (scoring is at a low) a few years ago. Some want to open up the lane, which I see little or no benefit for that when you cannot shoot any better or have no diversity to your game. And that also does not help if the coaches want to run clock or run their their sets multiple times.

Peace

What does this prove? Not sure it proves anything you asked a question and I answered it.

Players are developed to run the offenses and defenses their clubs want. With the unique difference in most international setting at the youth level the priority is not winning or avoiding being cut. Its developing your skills as the club is going to keep you in some capacity form youth until adult levels, your skill development determining which team you play on into your adult years.

Rules don't prevent someone from becoming a skilled player, but some rules can allow coaches to hide less skilled players or at least not put a premium on individual skill.


We can agree to disagree. I think that if you change ENOUGH rules to make the game speed up, to take the ball out of the coaches hands, and eliminate the abilty to run sets and offenses mulitple times per possession, and increase the freqquency with which players have to attack/be creative (when scoring happens and when most fouls occur) . . . then in the long term you end up with coaches and players needing to value the ability to create, make shots, handle the ball etc not just who you can defend how and your ability to run their stuff. If the players and coaches value skills over tactics then that trickle down increases your number of players who can handle, create and make shots. Also with simple math if you increase the number of possessions and reduce the amount of breaks all while increasing the situations where teams may foul, then each team needs to recruit/develop more skilled players.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

What does this prove? Not sure it proves anything you asked a question and I answered it.

I was not asking a question for the answer. I really do not care what the percentage of players come from international places. I already know that the main players that go to the NBA are coming from the United States. That is obvious. And since the top players are not coming from international places (like the top All-Stars or MVP candidates) then it really does not matter to me what rules international players play under and seems to not make that big of an overall difference. And I still feel the NBA needs to concentrate on developing their players, not worry about rules that help their game.

The NFL has way more rules differences from college and college has way more rules than NF or HS. No one complains about how they cannot develop players at the NFL level. Actually NFL coaches seem to think they can teach their systems even when a player comes from different systems.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not asking a question for the answer. I really do not care what the percentage of players come from international places. I already know that the main players that go to the NBA are coming from the United States. That is obvious. And since the top players are not coming from international places (like the top All-Stars or MVP candidates) then it really does not matter to me what rules international players play under and seems to not make that big of an overall difference. And I still feel the NBA needs to concentrate on developing their players, not worry about rules that help their game.

The NFL has way more rules differences from college and college has way more rules than NF or HS. No one complains about how they cannot develop players at the NFL level. Actually NFL coaches seem to think they can teach their systems even when a player comes from different systems.

Peace

So this is a more valid argument the years the Nash or Nowitski were winning MVPS's? Or when US national mens team got smoked?

As far as I can tell you feel like if the NBA wants more skilled players they should develop them, if the NCAA wants more skilled players they should develop them, and I can only assume that your reasoning then applies downward as such . . . If you have an issue in your dept you fix it. At no point to company policices, rules or the system itself need to be questioned simply for the sake of growth . . . if you are meeting your goals - status quo, when you are not change. No systemic issues to address just departmental. Dont' try to stay ahead of the curve or adopt innovations unless we have to . . .

You are right in that development can happen regardless of rule set. Development can also happen for players in the face of bad coaching or circumstances. They find ways to overcome. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be changed to minimize faults/weaknesses or grow areas of stregtt. Winning doesn't mean you are doing it the best way possible, just better then everyone else is currently. USA has great basketball and the worlds best basketball players, does that mean you shouldn't try to make a better system or method for creating more of them.

No one ever feels like guys stats or draft stock are inflated by NCAA football systems. I guess you've never heard of a QB being referred to not being able to fit in a pro system. . . but . . . nevermind selecting a non 360 degree sport where players only play either offense or defense and specialize skill sets and position is probably a great example for discussion of a sport where the entire game is going to more universal players vs 1 dimensional.

If you want to talk about other sports lets talk about soccer the skills and movements and universality of most players is a closer link to basketball. USA soccer has adopted a long term athlete development model that now guides and supports team selections, coaching methodolgy and helps to determine rule sets from top to bottom national team to youth leagues.

Almost every top basketball playing nation in the world has a long term athlete development plan and model except the USA they continue to trust in conflitcing AAU and School systems to generate enough athletes for the NCAA and NBA/ d-leagues to develop players. Your probably right trying to align rule sets or create a development first model for basketball as a national community couldn't possibly help.


Well off topic now . . . sorry.

[Kelvin green]

I am sure I will be one of the loners on a limb but after watching the Tournament, he's closer to being right than we want to admit.

I think the shot clock is too long. Interesting the men need more time to shoot than women.

Scoring is terrible. As was stated earlier, it is too one dimensional. There are too many players in the NCAA that take it to the basket when they never should. It is too physical (maybe a better term is out of control physical)
I have officiated very physical NBA plAyers and they are always more in control than college players.

I did not like the White Castle remark but there was some officiating that I really wondered about. The thing the NBA can do that the NCAA can't is get officials closer together on the way they want the game called. Does nit matter if you like NBA or nit they do strive for consistency. The fact the league makes comments on every call in the last two minutes means they are trying for correctness and consistency.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

So this is a more valid argument the years the Nash or Nowitski were winning MVPS's? Or when US national mens team got smoked?

Nash's MVP awards were controversial. Many today think that Shaq for example was robbed and so was Kobe in his two years. Secondly that was the only time when the US team did not win Gold. Not Bronze, Gold. In 18 Olympics the United States won Gold in 15 of those games. I think the USA is doing just fine and most of those were at a time when not a single shot clock was in the game certainly at the high school level. There is no other country doing anything better in any Olympic sport in a similar team sport. Since pro players have been apart of the USA did not win once.

Now maybe you can explain to me what other country could match that record?

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

As far as I can tell you feel like if the NBA wants more skilled players they should develop them, if the NCAA wants more skilled players they should develop them, and I can only assume that your reasoning then applies downward as such . . . If you have an issue in your dept you fix it. At no point to company policices, rules or the system itself need to be questioned simply for the sake of growth . . . if you are meeting your goals - status quo, when you are not change. No systemic issues to address just departmental. Dont' try to stay ahead of the curve or adopt innovations unless we have to . . .

With all due respect, I do not see the interest you claim to be an issue. USA Basketball is about as powerful a dynasty as any other in the world in any other sport. Soccer has no such rival in accomplishment as the USA Basketball teams. And the NBA and your boy Mark Cuban does not even want his players to play international basketball. So now you want the rest of the United States to change policies to fund a pro league that only benefits the owners and not the USA program. OK, that makes since. Is the NBA going to fund basketball programs like MLB does with youth baseball? If the goal is to develop players, you need to do more than change one or two rules I would think.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You are right in that development can happen regardless of rule set. Development can also happen for players in the face of bad coaching or circumstances. They find ways to overcome. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be changed to minimize faults/weaknesses or grow areas of stregtt. Winning doesn't mean you are doing it the best way possible, just better then everyone else is currently. USA has great basketball and the worlds best basketball players, does that mean you shouldn't try to make a better system or method for creating more of them.

Like I said, USA basketball and the NBA are not the same thing. Is the NBA going to change their rules to fit into the FIBA system? Even players that play International Basketball, there is a claim they must adjust a little, but for some strange reason they seem to excel.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Almost every top basketball playing nation in the world has a long term athlete development plan and model except the USA they continue to trust in conflitcing AAU and School systems to generate enough athletes for the NCAA and NBA/ d-leagues to develop players. Your probably right trying to align rule sets or create a development first model for basketball as a national community couldn't possibly help.

OK but the USA is dominating in basketball professionally and internationally. And guys like Cuban talks about what the NCAA does without putting his money up to change the system. If Cuban wants players to be developed at the lower levels, invest money in the NCAA or their own programs if they want only NBA players. Players from high school only go into college because there is no such league or level allowed to play otherwise unless they go overseas. And most players will never play college, let alone some other league even if you had such a league. Not sure what interest you think NCAA has in what the NBA does and they are not getting money in return. Because even the one and done rule is an NBA concoction, not a NCAA classification or standard.

Peace