|
|
Post by kozy on Mar 6, 2015 9:18:25 GMT -8
Seth Davis in this weeks SI which I can't link here discusses the lack of offensive in MBB this year. Basically, you can't watch teams play because there is no offense. He says to replace the rules committee because only 1 out of twelve members is from a P5 conference. The rules committee want rules to punish the good teams and reward the bad teams which they represent. One such rule maker is Sydney Johnson, head coach of Fairfield University my Alma Mater, who put together a 7-24 record this year. Think he wants to make the game faster, more open and possibly will get him fired when Fairfield goes winless? He lost to Duke this year by 50 points in December.
Davis's fast fixes are 1.) reduce the shot clock; 2.) extend the arc under the basket (block/charge call); 3.)Widen the lane to 14 feet; 4.) move back the three point line to 22'2" and 5.) limit timeouts, there are 9 time outs now and most occur at end of game which is not basketball any more.
The small schools are against the changes because it will cost money to repaint the courts. Let the NCAA pay for it so we can have basketball again.
The game is a slow down defensive game, we just happen to play it better than most.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 9:22:29 GMT -8
I read comments from him that also brought up the issues with officiating. That the rules interpretations differ from conference to conference is the direct result of how the refs are contracted by the NCAA. Having officiating more consistent would greatly benefit the game. As would rules to increase scoring like lowering the shot clock, I'd say 30 is fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 6, 2015 9:34:51 GMT -8
I read comments from him that also brought up the issues with officiating. That the rules interpretations differ from conference to conference is the direct result of how the refs are contracted by the NCAA. Having officiating more consistent would greatly benefit the game. As would rules to increase scoring like lowering the shot clock, I'd say 30 is fair. A 30 second shot clock would increase scoring (increased possessions) but reduce offensive efficiency. I think that would be good for a team like the Aztecs but am not convinced. I am sure it would reduce the number of upsets, marginally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 9:37:58 GMT -8
I read comments from him that also brought up the issues with officiating. That the rules interpretations differ from conference to conference is the direct result of how the refs are contracted by the NCAA. Having officiating more consistent would greatly benefit the game. As would rules to increase scoring like lowering the shot clock, I'd say 30 is fair. A 30 second shot clock would increase scoring (increased possessions) but reduce offensive efficiency. I think that would be good for a team like the Aztecs but am not convinced. I am sure it would reduce the number of upsets, marginally. My biggest issue with the shot clock currently is I think too many teams waste time simply for the sake of taking up the shot clock. Passing the ball around to set up a high quality shot is great, but doing so just to control tempo can lead to bad shots and unwatchable games too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 9:42:33 GMT -8
Shortening the shot clock is all that really needs to be done. The rest is gimmick with the exception being possibly moving the 3 pt line back. Something needs to be done to put a premium back on the mid range ( 12-17') jump shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 9:42:32 GMT -8
I agree with a few of these ideas ...
1st being NCAA Refs (this idea would help in more than 1 sport). As an example, if the pool of refs for all games in the nation/region were the same & with the same training -- this may bring about consistency. Imagine all Pac-12, MWC, BW, WCC, WAC, Big Sky, Big 12, C-USA and every other conference West of the Mississippi being officiated from the same pool of refs and assigned by an NCAA D1 committee and not the individual conferences.
2nd, shorten the Shot Clock to 30 sec., the NBA is what 24 seconds? We should be playing closer to their rules.
Speaking of closer to the NBA, extend the charge/block arc below the basket.
The 3-pt line, number of timeouts and lane width are fine (for now)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 9:50:44 GMT -8
Something needs to be done to put a premium back on the mid range ( 12-17') jump shot. If you want to increase scoring then encouraging kids to take a 12-17 foot jump shot is not the way to do it. That's the least effective shot in the history of basketball, regardless of the era. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 6, 2015 9:56:33 GMT -8
Something needs to be done to put a premium back on the mid range ( 12-17') jump shot. If you want to increase scoring then encouraging kids to take a 12-17 foot jump shot is not the way to do it. That's the least effective shot in the history of basketball, regardless of the era. I think Kobe, Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Karl Malone, and zillions of other well decorated players who's bread and butter was the midrange jumper would disagree with you. It's extremely effective for those who are good at it. Much more difficult to defend than taking it all the way to the bucket so you'd get a better look, and there's tons of players who are automatic with it |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 6, 2015 9:58:50 GMT -8
I read comments from him that also brought up the issues with officiating. That the rules interpretations differ from conference to conference is the direct result of how the refs are contracted by the NCAA. Having officiating more consistent would greatly benefit the game. As would rules to increase scoring like lowering the shot clock, I'd say 30 is fair. A 30 second shot clock would increase scoring (increased possessions) but reduce offensive efficiency. I think that would be good for a team like the Aztecs but am not convinced. I am sure it would reduce the number of upsets, marginally. Would reducing the shot clock increase scoring? It didn't the last time they did it. Like you say, it may reduce efficiency and could to the point it would hurt scoring. Will be be curious to watch the NIT this year and see how this goes. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 6, 2015 10:03:03 GMT -8
Why not just make it illegal to for the defense to raise their hands above their shoulders? Or maybe shorten the shot clock to 15 seconds? Or perhaps draw an arc extending 15 feet out from the basket, a zone in which no defensive player may enter?
Come one, folks, the rules are fine the way things are. So what if scores are in the 50s or 60s? This pathological desire to artificially raise scoring drives me nuts. Same thing is happening in FB where it's almost a federal offense to tackle the QB.
For one, I like defense as well as offense. One of the most exciting games (football, to be sure) was when my high school played an important away game. The other guys scored the only points in the last couple of minutes, set up by a long pass completion. We lost, 0-7. But that was one hell of a game. There's plenty of excitement in a goal line stand that denies the offense a TD. Same for when Spencer blocks a shot in hoops.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke!
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 6, 2015 10:04:49 GMT -8
If you want to increase scoring then encouraging kids to take a 12-17 foot jump shot is not the way to do it. That's the least effective shot in the history of basketball, regardless of the era. I think Kobe, Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Karl Malone, and zillions of other well decorated players who's bread and butter was the midrange jumper would disagree with you. It's extremely effective for those who are good at it. Much more difficult to defend than taking it all the way to the bucket so you'd get a better look, and there's tons of players who are automatic with it Exceptions to the rule, and it's not zillions; it's certain elite players and/or specialists. The numbers are undeniable, and with good reason. Here is one analysis: Did Efficiency Statistics Kill The Mid Range Jump Shot |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:04:58 GMT -8
Something needs to be done to put a premium back on the mid range ( 12-17') jump shot. If you want to increase scoring then encouraging kids to take a 12-17 foot jump shot is not the way to do it. That's the least effective shot in the history of basketball, regardless of the era. ok Rockets fan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:26:05 GMT -8
If you want to increase scoring then encouraging kids to take a 12-17 foot jump shot is not the way to do it. That's the least effective shot in the history of basketball, regardless of the era. I think Kobe, Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Karl Malone, and zillions of other well decorated players who's bread and butter was the midrange jumper would disagree with you. It's extremely effective for those who are good at it. Much more difficult to defend than taking it all the way to the bucket so you'd get a better look, and there's tons of players who are automatic with it You just named 4 or 5 hall of famers at the professional level, genius. Yes Hall of Fame professional basketball players tend to be great shooters. What about the 99% of basketball players who aren't hall of famers in the NBA? What about the 99.9999% of COLLEGE BASKETBALL players that won't be NBA Hall of Famers? Since You know, we're talking about COLLEGE basketball. The 12-17 foot jump shot is incredibly ineffective, it's got less of a chance of going in than a layup and the same amount of chance of going in as a 3 pointer. Except a 3 pointer is worth more so it's the smarter shot to take. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to take it, but I would never want to build my team around it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:28:57 GMT -8
I think Kobe, Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Karl Malone, and zillions of other well decorated players who's bread and butter was the midrange jumper would disagree with you. It's extremely effective for those who are good at it. Much more difficult to defend than taking it all the way to the bucket so you'd get a better look, and there's tons of players who are automatic with it You just named 4 or 5 hall of famers at the professional level, genius. Yes Hall of Fame professional basketball players tend to be great shooters. What about the 99% of basketball players who aren't hall of famers in the NBA? What about the 99.9999% of COLLEGE BASKETBALL players that won't be NBA Hall of Famers? Since You know, we're talking about COLLEGE basketball. The 12-17 foot jump shot is incredibly ineffective, it's got less of a chance of going in than a layup and the same amount of chance of going in as a 3 pointer. Except a 3 pointer is worth more so it's the smarter shot to take. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to take it, but I would never want to build my team around it. You're right, I wouldn't want to build a team around it or emphasize it, especially considering the shorter three point arc compared to the NBA. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:33:22 GMT -8
You just named 4 or 5 hall of famers at the professional level, genius. Yes Hall of Fame professional basketball players tend to be great shooters. What about the 99% of basketball players who aren't hall of famers in the NBA? What about the 99.9999% of COLLEGE BASKETBALL players that won't be NBA Hall of Famers? Since You know, we're talking about COLLEGE basketball. The 12-17 foot jump shot is incredibly ineffective, it's got less of a chance of going in than a layup and the same amount of chance of going in as a 3 pointer. Except a 3 pointer is worth more so it's the smarter shot to take. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to take it, but I would never want to build my team around it. You're right, I wouldn't want to build a team around it or emphasize it, especially considering the shorter three point arc compared to the NBA. I'm always right, Fishh, Don'tt Killl Myy Vibee. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:34:19 GMT -8
You're right, I wouldn't want to build a team around it or emphasize it, especially considering the shorter three point arc compared to the NBA. I'm always right, Fishh, Don'tt Killl Myy Vibee. oh no, what have I done |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 6, 2015 10:37:17 GMT -8
I think Kobe, Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Karl Malone, and zillions of other well decorated players who's bread and butter was the midrange jumper would disagree with you. It's extremely effective for those who are good at it. Much more difficult to defend than taking it all the way to the bucket so you'd get a better look, and there's tons of players who are automatic with it You just named 4 or 5 hall of famers at the professional level, genius. Yes Hall of Fame professional basketball players tend to be great shooters. What about the 99% of basketball players who aren't hall of famers in the NBA? What about the 99.9999% of COLLEGE BASKETBALL players that won't be NBA Hall of Famers? Since You know, we're talking about COLLEGE basketball. The 12-17 foot jump shot is incredibly ineffective, it's got less of a chance of going in than a layup and the same amount of chance of going in as a 3 pointer. Except a 3 pointer is worth more so it's the smarter shot to take. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to take it, but I would never want to build my team around it. I've played with people who are really good with it.. I suppose I should've been more grounded with my examples. Thames is another one who lived off the midrange jumper. There's plenty of college players that are comfortable and good with it, just not on this team since we can't shoot. A more difficult layup because a 6'10 big dude comes up to help on defense is often a lot tougher than a pull up jumper |
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 6, 2015 10:37:43 GMT -8
A 30 second shot clock would increase scoring (increased possessions) but reduce offensive efficiency. I think that would be good for a team like the Aztecs but am not convinced. I am sure it would reduce the number of upsets, marginally. Would reducing the shot clock increase scoring? It didn't the last time they did it. Like you say, it may reduce efficiency and could to the point it would hurt scoring. Will be be curious to watch the NIT this year and see how this goes. Scoring used to be higher than it is now when there was no shot clock with the exception of teams like North Carolina or some teams playing stall, stall, stall against Wooden's UCLA teams. |
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 6, 2015 10:48:21 GMT -8
I've played with people who are really good with it.. I suppose I should've been more grounded with my examples. Thames is another one who lived off the midrange jumper. There's plenty of college players that are comfortable and good with it, just not on this team since we can't shoot. A more difficult layup because a 6'10 big dude comes up to help on defense is often a lot tougher than a pull up jumper Anecdotal evidence < Volumes of statistical evidence No one is saying that there aren't players that are effective at 2 point mid-range jump shots. It does NOT follow that 2 point mid-ranged jump shots should be re-emphasized. As a group, collectively, college basketball players are more efficient with three-point shots than with two-point mid range jump shots. As a group, collectively, college basketball players are much more efficient with layups (usually dunks) than with two-point mid range jump shots. The #1 reason that the mid-range jump shot is devalued is because of the 3 point shot. On Aztex' point that scoring was higher previously, I'm not super sure about that. However, players are bigger, stronger and faster than they used to be, but the court size has not changed. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 6, 2015 11:19:45 GMT -8
You just named 4 or 5 hall of famers at the professional level, genius. Yes Hall of Fame professional basketball players tend to be great shooters. What about the 99% of basketball players who aren't hall of famers in the NBA? What about the 99.9999% of COLLEGE BASKETBALL players that won't be NBA Hall of Famers? Since You know, we're talking about COLLEGE basketball. The 12-17 foot jump shot is incredibly ineffective, it's got less of a chance of going in than a layup and the same amount of chance of going in as a 3 pointer. Except a 3 pointer is worth more so it's the smarter shot to take. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to take it, but I would never want to build my team around it. I've played with people who are really good with it.. I suppose I should've been more grounded with my examples. Thames is another one who lived off the midrange jumper. There's plenty of college players that are comfortable and good with it, just not on this team since we can't shoot. A more difficult layup because a 6'10 big dude comes up to help on defense is often a lot tougher than a pull up jumper Thames was just OK at the mid-range jumper - 40.1% (85-212) in 2013-2014. The Aztecs should not allow it except for short clock situations. Most players have a higher 3 point percentage off an assist than a 2 point percentage by creating. The one thing that really sets it in stone is fouls. Very rarely do players get fouled shooting a J. |
|
