Official NCAA Rule Change Proposals for 15-16 Season

[capnkirk]

I don't like it. I for one did not think the game was broken but everyone listens to idiots like Jay Bilas.

Bingo!

[WuDrWu]

The entire last part of the article is all for the women's game, correct? Seems silly the band can play at the women's game but not the men's game.

Like: No resetting of the 10 second backcourt count. No doubledipping of the timeouts with media timeouts. Dunking ok during warmups. Seems like it's about 30 years behind on this one.


Don't Like: 30 second shot clock (I don't care about the crappy international game). 4 timeouts to 3. Not in addition to the media timeout thing. Coaches not being able to call live ball timeouts. Not just because Gregg is great at using these. Slow play after timeouts result in a T. Only if it's enforced across the board, which you know it will not be. Think Duke gets T'd up late in a game? No. Stupid rule.


Completely idiotic: Elimination of the 5 second count defensively. 15 instead of 20 seconds after a foul out. Seriously, these 5 seconds are a problem? What's a class B technical foul? Never heard that used in the college game. I hope the 6 foul thing fails miserably.

[shock-it-to-me]

Can somebody tell me a reason for 4-10 minute quarters rather than 2-20 minute halves? Other than the 2 added, forced timeouts, is there a difference that I'm just not wrapping my head around?

Also, you get to reset team fouls at the quarter, so if you get into team foul trouble early in a half, you aren't saddled with the bonus for the remainder of a 20 minute half.

[Kel Varnsen]

I just think it's dumb that pundits like Bilas use their bully pulpit to institute change. The game wasn't "unwatchable", but it can get better (freedom of movement and block/charge are the big problems). The 30 second shot clock won't change much, in my opinion.

[Heinro]

I'm generally alright with most of the rule changes. I love the fact that a time out doesn't reset the 10 second back-court violation. Should add strategy and reward defenses for trapping rather than just fouling at the end. On the reverse end, removal of the 5 second violation sucks, if you just stand their pissing down your leg it should be a turnover. The 4 arch should be good. The 30 second shot clock I honestly don't think will have that much of an effect; the 15 people and I that watched the NIT could see that it really didn't make much of a difference. Finally, as long as we have Marshall, they can take all of our time outs. We have to be in the bottom 1% on time out usage.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm generally alright with most of the rule changes. I love the fact that a time out doesn't reset the 10 second back-court violation. Should add strategy and reward defenses for trapping rather than just fouling at the end. On the reverse end, removal of the 5 second violation sucks, if you just stand their pissing down your leg it should be a turnover. The 4 arch should be good. The 30 second shot clock I honestly don't think will have that much of an effect; the 15 people and I that watched the NIT could see that it really didn't make much of a difference. Finally, as long as we have Marshall, they can take all of our time outs. We have to be in the bottom 1% on time out usage.

While in principal I agree on the 5 second count, I don't mind seeing it go because it was one of the least consistently called rules in all of NCAA basketball. In the first place, it is just rarely called, but even when it is called it almost always seems to have been a relatively quick whistle compared to instances within the same game that went uncalled. Plus, with a shorter shot clock, the built in penalty for wasting time just standing with the ball is a bit greater already.

[Signman]

Since the shot clock was instituted I've felt like the 5 second closely guarded count became redundant in college basketball. It can almost be fifteen seconds by catching the ball, holding it for nearly 5 seconds, start a dribble for nearly 5 seconds and hold it again for another 4+ seconds. I liked it even less when it was changed to alternating possessions. It will certainly simplify an officials job.

[RoyalShock]

Agreed. I presume the 5-second call harkened back to when there was no shot clock.

I'm also glad coaches can't call timeouts while the ball is in play. Coaches shouldn't be able to directly affect the game during gameplay, in my opinion. Of course, having been a tennis player, once we stepped onto the court there was no coaching allowed, except during a changeover.

[engrshock]

So are you saying the coach should not be able to call out plays or defenses? That would be a big change.

[ShockdaWorld]

So are you saying the coach should not be able to call out plays or defenses? That would be a big change.

+

If this was the case, I think WSU would be at a HUGE advantage for the upcoming season with the high basketball IQ of our backcourt. After this season would be questionable.

[WuDrWu]

Just to add one more thing about the 5 second call. I think @The Mad Hatter: makes an excellent point, I would only add that my concern is also with the potential boring play that I hate in the NBA.

As it is today, I CANNOT STAND watching Labron (or anyone) stand out there and just dribble, dribble, dribble...etc etc. for 24 seconds. It's AWFUL.


I sure as hell don't want to see it for half a minute. And when others realize this, I fear the answer is to shorten the shot clock again to 24. It's a BETTER game than the NBA. Stop trying to make it like the NBA.

[RoyalShock]

So are you saying the coach should not be able to call out plays or defenses? That would be a big change.

Nope.

Coach can tell a player to call timeout, but the player has to listen and execute, just like if the coach calls out a play.

I realize it's a subtle thing. But I think this plays to our advantage, as the opposing coach wouldn't be able to bail out his player if we have him trapped in the back court. The player has to have the presence of mind to know the time and call the timeout.

[The Mad Hatter]

Just to add one more thing about the 5 second call. I think @The Mad Hatter makes an excellent point, I would only add that my concern is also with the potential boring play that I hate in the NBA.

As it is today, I CANNOT STAND watching Labron (or anyone) stand out there and just dribble, dribble, dribble...etc etc. for 24 seconds. It's AWFUL.


I sure as hell don't want to see it for half a minute. And when others realize this, I fear the answer is to shorten the shot clock again to 24. It's a BETTER game than the NBA. Stop trying to make it like the NBA.

I sympathize with this fear, but fortunately, I think that there are factors other than the five second count that make it less likely that college teams will move to isolation play offenses.

Isolation plays are not, in general, particularly efficient offensive plays, even in the pros.

Start with the basics. The goal of basketball, in its simplest form, is to turn possessions into points. And on that basis, when Synergy began breaking down NBA plays by type in 2004, what it found would have made Wooden smile: Plays involving off-the-ball cuts (1.18 points per possession) and transition plays (1.12 ppp) are by far the most efficient, followed by putbacks (1.04 ppp) and pick-and-rolls in which the ball reaches the hands of the rolling man (0.97 ppp). And the least efficient? Isolation plays, good for only 0.78 points per possession.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7649571/nba-kobe-bryant-not-money-think-espn-magazine

To the degree that they work, they work because there is a player on the floor so talented that having the ball in their hands overwhelms general rules. The fact is that there aren't many of those players even in the NBA, but in college it is so rare and even those future stars in the making so undeveloped that this is rarely a winning strategy. Few college teams have a Lebron James to even think of running iso for.

This Grantland article says basically the same thing about the likelihood of a shorter shot clock moving college to a more NBA-style, iso-heavy game, even as an advocate of a shorter clock:

After writing that post last year, I’ll admit that counter-arguments have swayed me, at least from time to time. The idea that the style clashes, between slow teams and fast teams, defined college basketball, and that variety is the spice of the sport’s life, started to make sense. I also began to fear that the college game would start looking like the NBA if the shot clock was lowered to 24 seconds, with lots of one-on-one play and the disintegration of the team game. The third argument, though, was the most logical and compelling: If defenses are so great now, how’s it going to help scoring to lower the shot clock and give inferior offenses even less time to break them down?

The first two concepts were easy to dismiss. In terms of style clashes, it’s not a fair fight; it’s way too easy for slow teams to bring fast teams to their level. There’s not enough talent on the college level to play an NBA isolation style, so I’m not worried about the second argument, either. But I will say in all honesty that I have no idea what might happen with bad offenses in a shortened clock. My suspicion is that since the strong defensive teams associated with slow offense — Wisconsin and Virginia are the stereotypes — will have to play faster on offense, it will hinder their stalwart defense just enough to open up the game and lead to increased efficiency. But all I know for sure is that with a 24-second clock, you’ll have more possessions, and more scoring opportunities, and a faster pace. The game needs that, and it’s worth the risk.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/three-ways-to-fix-the-ugliness-of-college-basketball/

Sure, occasionally there will be a Kevin Durant at Texas situation where a team could successfully run iso plays in college, but most of the time teams that try to do so would just be volunteering to run less efficient offenses and would lose a whole bunch.