Officiating Trends in 2014-15

[Play Angry]

Last season we saw a ton of rule changes and jawboning in the fall, followed by fairly uniform enforcement of the new approach during the OOC in November and December. By March, however, referees had basically flipped the bird to the new orders on pace of play and things returned to how they were called for the last few seasons (with the exception, kinda, of the charge rule). Possessions and points per game tapered dramatically as the season wore on.

We obviously proved we can win under both approaches. I am wondering a few things.

1. Would you like to see a return to enforcement favoring a faster pace of play (the November/December approach)? There was a nauseating amount of ticky tack calls during that stretch, but it did seem to be producing the desired effect before officials abandoned their preseason marching orders. The alternative seems to be the basketbrawl style that earned so much criticism previously.
2. Are there other rule changes that you would prefer in lieu of returning to 1980s style foul calls? A shorter shot clock? A reduction of the 10 second rule?

I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the November/December enforcement of foul calls, but I think the likelihood of that is low. It will be interesting to see what happens if possessions and scoring revert to 2012-13 levels this season (assuming no action is taken).

[The Mad Hatter]

I never thought there was something wrong with the college game to start with that demanded the rule changes we saw last year. In particular, the idea that there isn't enough scoring is an arbitrary way to evaluate the quality of a sporting event.

While I think WSU can certainly win in either style, I think that increasing the number of ticky-tack fouls disproportionately harms more talented teams because one of the few things that could level the playing field is star players in early foul trouble and more fouls doled out makes that more likely.

If the college game wants to make a change, I could buy moving to a shorter shot clock. NCAA men's basketball is way out of the norm at 35 seconds. Both the WNBA and NCAA women's basketball are at 30 seconds and both the NBA and FIBA are at 24 seconds. Moving the shot clock down to 30 seconds makes a lot of sense for consistency purposes. If you want higher scoring, the increased pace allows for it, but without penalizing defenses to accomplish it.

If there is a change in shot clock, that is even more reason to not go with the ticky-tack rules enforcement because if you increase the number of possessions with the shot clock, the foul trouble problems get even worse.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I saw the rules changes last year as actually harming the less talented teams which in the past had resorted to grabbing and excessive contact to effectively guard more athletic opposition (*cough* Evansville *cough*). However, it seems the rules changes did not have the desired effect, the games became, for all intents and purposes, slower and longer free throw contests, and the refs backed off calling the new rules as strictly.

I agree on the shot clock, though. If they want to speed up the game, that's how to do it.

[wsushox1]

I don't know if a shortened shot clock would speed up the game as much as people think.

If you get talented enough players they shouldn't need more than 20 seconds to get a good look. The pace and speed of the game is determined by talent level, not by the shot clock.

[im4wsu]

I would like at least an experiment with changing the 10-second to get across mid-court after the ball is in play to 15 seconds to get across beginning at the time the inbounder is handed the ball AND with no resetting of the 15 seconds due to timeout or dead balls. If the defense knocks the ball out of bounds after 13 seconds, then the offensive team has two seconds to both inbound the ball and cross the time line.

Secondly, I like to see only players on the court being allowed to call timeouts. IMHO, the game should be "taught" by coaches and "played" by players.

[Aargh]

I like the idea of not resetting the 10-second clock for a backcourt time out. It places value on playing D the entire length of the court. Some D in the backcourt slows down the offensive team, which essentially provides a shorter time clock. If it takes 8 seconds to cross half court instead of 3, thatgives the same effect of a 30-second shot clock.

Plus, there would be more full-court presses and plays to defeat them. That can make for some exciting basketball. Back court turnovers and breakaway jams after beating a press are great plays to watch.

[Cdizzle]

The easiest and best way to speed up the game is to remove all the 6-minute media timeouts. Right now, unless you play for UNI, players don't tire during the course of the game. Tired players have defensive breakdowns, make mental mistakes, which leads to more efficient scoring opportunities (runouts, open lanes to the basket, lazy close-outs). The NCAA is trying to solve a problem that exists only because they want to make more money.

As an aside, this would also alleviate the problem of only getting 7 consecutive seconds of action in the last 2 minutes of close games. Teams would have to burn their own timeouts throughout the game to break runs, stay fresh, and make substitutions; instead of waiting for another media timeout. Even removing 1 media timeout per half would have a significant impact in the aforementioned areas. It would also greatly impact fan experience. When my team goes on a 6-0 run, the opposing coach calls timeout to quiet the crowd, gather the troops. Gameplay resumes and before I even have a chance to stand up and yell the opposing team fouls 12 seconds later and we go to a media timeout.

[im4wsu]

The easiest and best way to speed up the game is to remove all the 6-minute media timeouts. Right now, unless you play for UNI, players don't tire during the course of the game. Tired players have defensive breakdowns, make mental mistakes, which leads to more efficient scoring opportunities (runouts, open lanes to the basket, lazy close-outs). The NCAA is trying to solve a problem that exists only because they want to make more money.

As an aside, this would also alleviate the problem of only getting 7 consecutive seconds of action in the last 2 minutes of close games. Teams would have to burn their own timeouts throughout the game to break runs, stay fresh, and make substitutions; instead of waiting for another media timeout. Even removing 1 media timeout per half would have a significant impact in the aforementioned areas. It would also greatly impact fan experience. When my team goes on a 6-0 run, the opposing coach calls timeout to quiet the crowd, gather the troops. Gameplay resumes and before I even have a chance to stand up and yell the opposing team fouls 12 seconds later and we go to a media timeout.

Why not start games at 7:10 and thus allow three extra minutes of commercials before the game. extend halftime by five minutes for commercials and reduce media timeouts by 8 minutes, two per half. TV would get their 8 minutes, the fans won't notice 3 more minutes of hoopla before the game and the extra time at half would allow more time to eat, drink and pee.

[AndShock]

Why not start games at 7:10 and thus allow three extra minutes of commercials before the game. extend halftime by five minutes for commercials and reduce media timeouts by 8 minutes, two per half. TV would get their 8 minutes, the fans won't notice 3 more minutes of hoopla before the game and the extra time at half would allow more time to eat, drink and pee.

Because I'm guessing late-game commercial slots are worth more $$$ than pre-game or halftime slots. There might not be a different in commercial slots for, say a Sunday afternoon MVC game on ESPNU, but I'd imagine there's a considerable difference for the noon Saturday CBS games.

[im4wsu]

Because I'm guessing late-game commercial slots are worth more $$$ than pre-game or halftime slots. There might not be a different in commercial slots for, say a Sunday afternoon MVC game on ESPNU, but I'd imagine there's a considerable difference for the noon Saturday CBS games.

Hard to generalize. There is hype for pre-game, not so much halftime. But many games lose viewers after the 16-minute time out in the second half if the score is not competitive. Giving up the first two media timeouts of each half might actually enhance the "value" because you'd potentuially have 12 consecutive minutes of game action each half. TV would still have their late timeouts

[The Mad Hatter]

I don't know if a shortened shot clock would speed up the game as much as people think.

If you get talented enough players they shouldn't need more than 20 seconds to get a good look. The pace and speed of the game is determined by talent level, not by the shot clock.

A shortened shot clock wouldn't speed up a game between two teams that already had efficient offenses, but there are plenty of games where one inefficient team is able to slow down the pace of the game by using a lot of shot clock.

The main reason to change the shot clock is how out of step NCAA men's basketball is compared to equivalent and higher levels of basketball. I can buy not having college and NBA shot clocks be the same, but why is the men's shot clock 5 seconds longer than the women's? I would think the NBA would be in favor of college moving to a 30 second shot clock since it would make players a least somewhat more ready for the kind of offensive pacing of the pro game.

[The Mad Hatter]

I saw the rules changes last year as actually harming the less talented teams which in the past had resorted to grabbing and excessive contact to effectively guard more athletic opposition (*cough* Evansville *cough*). However, it seems the rules changes did not have the desired effect, the games became, for all intents and purposes, slower and longer free throw contests, and the refs backed off calling the new rules as strictly.

I agree on the shot clock, though. If they want to speed up the game, that's how to do it.

At one level, less talented teams might be called for more fouls but I would still say it hurts more talented teams more for two reasons:

1. In general, allowing contact favors more talented athletic players because even if a less talented player can grab, the physical play will overall benefit the physically gifted teams. For instance, see what happened for WSU in our Final Four run when we were allowed to play physically versus Valley play earlier in that season. In addition, the obvious fouls that occur from being really out of position will always be called. Calling it really tight increases the number of fouls called on a defender who was in generally good position, but had a tick-tacky infraction. This means ticky-tack fouls may hurt good defenders more than bad ones.

2. Even if it is usually true that the bad team would have more calls against them under tighter rules, that scenario still can operate as a leveling mechanism, much like bad weather in outdoor sports like football. A good football team may usually handle bad weather better than a bad football team, but it is still considered an equalizer because without bad weather the bad team has very little chance of winning. With bad weather, there is at least the possibility that conditions will cause turnovers, slips, etc. that introduce a possibility of winning that otherwise wouldn't exist. The same goes with foul trouble in this case. If the bad team gets in more foul trouble, it is meaningless because they wouldn't have won anyway. But if the good team gets in foul trouble, it opens up possibilities for a loss and only exist because of that foul trouble.

[1979Shocker]

Give the ball to the defensive team on jump balls and use the possession arrow only for those situations where the team possession cannot be determined.