Mark Cuban Blasts NCAA Basketball

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Shit rolls downhill. Cuban blasts the NCAA for not preparing athletes for the NBA, Geno blames HS for not preparing athletes for college, despite that fact that the vast majority of HS and NCAA players will not play at the next level.

I wonder how much here with these and other critics is the internationalization of the game. Geno does USA basketball, Cubans experience have multiple players on National teams etc. . .

North America is basically the only model where basketball (and other sports) are connected and run by educational institutes. Almost everyhere else they run club systems where the only purpose of the club is to groom youth players into adult players that will play in rec, semi pro or professional ranks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I wonder how much here with these and other critics is the internationalization of the game. Geno does USA basketball, Cubans experience have multiple players on National teams etc. . .

North America is basically the only model where basketball (and other sports) are connected and run by educational institutes. Almost everyhere else they run club systems where the only purpose of the club is to groom youth players into adult players that will play in rec, semi pro or professional ranks.

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

[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.

[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.