Changes To College Basketball Style

[asiseeit]

These changes are being promoted by the biggest money making programs that can
recruit the 4/5 star players every year. They don't like being upset by programs that
play tough and smart. Faster game means more possessions and that benefits the
teams with the more talented players not the teams that emphasize defense,
limiting turnovers, playing smart, playing tough and grinding out wins. THAT IS US !

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Please don't shorten the shock clock. I don't want more one-on-one, I want more team ball. Shortening the shock clock will just lead to more end of shot clock scenarios where the PG or SG take the ball up top and do a one-on-one drive or jumper at the buzzer.

[1972Shocker]

I think lowering the shot clock is a must. I think 30 seconds might still be a little high. Maybe 26-28 seconds. More possessions = more points being scored. I personally like the physical defensives of NCAA basketball.

That might help some but it might also just lead to more end of shot clock prayers and lower shooting percentages if everything remains equal. Coach Marshall has has said that he thinks that the reason that scoring is down is due the physical play allowed in today's game and that if you want more scoring the number one solution would be to take some of he physicality out of the game. If teams are having difficulty breaking down a defense with a 35 second clock it will get even more difficult to find good shots with a 24 second clock.

Scoring in the college game peaked in 1972 with teams scoring an average of 77.7 PPG and that was before the shot clock of any kind and before the 3-point shot was implemented. It is not because the players were better back then. Players are at least as skilled now as they ever have been although I have heard some coaches including Coach Marshall say that too much time is spent playing games at the expense of developing fundamentals and specific skills. The main thing though is that the freedom of movement offensive players enjoyed in those days was greater than it is in the current game.

Attached is a current article by Seth Davis on the state of the game and the scoring issues.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/26/hoop-thoughts-college-basketball-scoring-pace

[ShockBand]

Unless my link is old:

RESTRICTED AREA (“KEY”, “LANE”)
FIBA: A trapezoid 3.6 m (12') wide at the free
throw line and 6 m wide (19' 8.25") at the
baseline.
NBA, WNBA: 4.88 m (16') wide rectangle.
NCAA: 3.6 m (12') wide rectangle.

I would probably go with NBA/WNBA dimensions on this one, I like the idea of a wider lane - but wouldn't want to change it all the way to 6 m

Here are current markings and dimensions, FIBA is in white:

[Ashockalypse]

These changes are being promoted by the biggest money making programs that can
recruit the 4/5 star players every year. They don't like being upset by programs that
play tough and smart. Faster game means more possessions and that benefits the
teams with the more talented players not the teams that emphasize defense,
limiting turnovers, playing smart, playing tough and grinding out wins. THAT IS US !

This

[Play Angry]

These changes are being promoted by the biggest money making programs that can
recruit the 4/5 star players every year. They don't like being upset by programs that
play tough and smart. Faster game means more possessions and that benefits the
teams with the more talented players not the teams that emphasize defense,
limiting turnovers, playing smart, playing tough and grinding out wins. THAT IS US !

I don't think the disparity in talent is as wide as you assert (at least between us and the blueblood programs). We fared very, very well in the first 12 games last year when tempo experience the temporary uptick.

I would argue that it hurts the Evansvilles of the world far more. We have the gazelles that can get up and down the court, they do not. The canyon between us and the rest of the league would continue to widen.

[Kel Varnsen]

Outside of egregious contact by the offensive player, get rid of the charge call. It's ruining the game when an offensive player makes a great move to the basket, only to be undone by a defensive player sliding in at the last minute (which, let's all be honest, is not real defense).

Freedom of movement should be part of this as well. It's a lot harder to play defense like Tekele Cotton than it is to play defense like Aaron Craft.

Fewer timeouts, definitely. TV timeouts take up enough time as it is. I'm thinking more like two per half or three total.

Shot clock, meh. If teams aren't efficient with 35 seconds, they'll likely be less efficient in 30 or 24 seconds.

[wusphlash]

I don't have a problem with the game today and I certainly don't want an NBA clone. If changes are made, 30 second clock, wider lane would be my first choices. Regarding freedom of movement, as pointed out by "72", the game is called much differently today. In the high scoring 70's you were allowed very little contact. Today's players would foul out even if they were granted 10 fouls instead of 5. We'll never see that again.

I think speeding up the game would help the elite athletes. In the world of the MVC it would help us. There would still be room for creative and innovative coaches. Coaches who are teachers (i.e. GM), to compete at the top. Unfortunately, just as there are only so many elite athletes, there are only so many of these type coaches to go around. The competitive balance will shift more to the top.

[Shock Top]

Shortening the shot-clock would be good. The rest of the world uses a 24 second one. NCAA would be able to adjust (even the "little guys").

[chitown_shocker]

These changes are being promoted by the biggest money making programs that can
recruit the 4/5 star players every year. They don't like being upset by programs that
play tough and smart. Faster game means more possessions and that benefits the
teams with the more talented players not the teams that emphasize defense,
limiting turnovers, playing smart, playing tough and grinding out wins. THAT IS US !

I just don't see it this way. Our guys are athletic enough to compete with anybody. You play good defense by moving your feet, not mugging guys, too much hand checks too much contact. It's barely basketball.

I don't want to watch 40 minutes of classic SIU no matter who it benefits.

OH, and FYI - we are the big boys.

[DCShockerFan05]

I don't really understand what problem these changes are supposed to be solving. Is the product actually broken? I get why hockey made changes to boost scoring when the NHL was really trying to grow the audience, and I understand why baseball is trying to speed up the game to keep from losing its audience, but is NCAA basketball struggling? And if so, is it because of the in-game rules, or the macro-level rules and patterns that shape recruiting, scheduling, and so on?

I also don't buy the argument that the rule differences are hurting preparation for the NBA, and even if I did, I'm not sure why we need to mess with the rules for the benefit of the few dozen players each year who will actually go to the NBA.

Stylistic preferences aside, here's the biggest reason I don't want the college rules to be more like the NBA: Because the players aren't as skilled, we can't expect a college game played under NBA rules to look like an NBA game anyway. It's one thing to encourage quick shots and one-on-one play when almost every player has a credible jump shot, ballhandling skill, and years of experience. Force the freshmen at Nowhere Tech to run the offense in 24 seconds and you'll get a lot of bricks, errant passes, and wild drives. If you've ever watched two NBA teams both have cold shooting nights you know how awful it is to watch. That would be the norm in college.

[Play Angry]

I don't know that people are arguing for the college game to conform to the NBA as much as they are arguing for the college game to conform to its own more aesthetically pleasing version from the past.

I am sure some of it is generational. A game like '92 Duke-Kentucky with its frenetic pace could never, ever happen right now with the way games are called. If I had not been around to watch that game and ones like it, I probably would be wondering what everyone is griping about since the current state would be "normal" despite bearing little semblance to college basketball from the late 70s until ~2000.

I also wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that we are good right now, so therefore some folks on here like the style by default. I mean, do you really enjoy watching the average Big Ten slugfest this year more than in past seasons when styles were different? Have you sat through multiple UVA and Kentucky games (beatdown of Kansas notwithstanding)? It is excruciating and this is coming from someone who loves hoops and watches countless hours of **** matchups like Elon vs. Western Carolina just for the hell of it. I think some folks might admit to liking WSU ball far more now than in the 90s (who wouldn't) and since that is 90% of the college ball they watch, they lump the officiating and pace in along with it.

[asiseeit]

chitown - I respectfully disagree. we are NOT the "big boys" - we are the boys who have
learned how to take them down..........and they don't like it. we live on playing angry, MTXE,
and playing together intelligently not sheer athletic ability / talent. yes, we have some
very good players but we win because of toughness, willingness to play tough defense and
playing as a team. make these rule changes and you will see more players playing for
themselves and impressing NBA scouts in addition to less competitive games and fewer upsets.
I disagree with taking away the tools mid majors are using to play with the "big boys". I like
to see DEFENSE and close games.

[Kung Wu]

I don't have a problem with the game today and I certainly don't want an NBA clone. If changes are made, 30 second clock, wider lane would be my first choices. Regarding freedom of movement, as pointed out by "72", the game is called much differently today. In the high scoring 70's you were allowed very little contact. Today's players would foul out even if they were granted 10 fouls instead of 5. We'll never see that again.

I like the game the way it is. In the 90's I remember bitching nightly (okay a few times a week) about how the MVC refs called every little ticky tack foul that they could while the power conferences were allowed to display their athleticism and bang a little. It really keeps the flow of the game going instead of just whistle, whistle, whistle like 20 years ago.

The only thing in my opinion that needs to be addressed are the way blocks/charges are called. There is way too much ambiguity and objectiveness forced on the referees the way it is-- they are set up for failure.

[shockmonster]

I don't like when defenders use their hands to hold the offensive player up. I don't mind the physicality if the defense has to move their feet to play defense. Defenders who use their hands (especially on the perimeter) are just lazy. They need to use their legs, and bodies to defend.