|
Post by Zuma on Apr 2, 2015 15:02:40 GMT -8
I'm not sure if this would help scoring, but I believe teams are given too many timeouts. When a player is trapped and about to turn the ball over, the player shouldn't be bailed out by calling a time out. Force the turnover and it should lead to fast-break points. Currently each team gets one 60-second timeout and four 30-second timeouts per game, in addition to four media timeouts per half. That's a total of 18 timeouts for a 40-minute game! How about only giving 20 seconds on the shot clock after an offensive rebound? I guess that would require some new equipment or programming of clocks. Best suggestion yet. I would just go with a ten second timer for back court, and 25 second shot clock for all possessions in the front court. Put another clock above the shot clock that only counts down from 10, controlled by remote from the official closest to the inbounder. He also doesn't have to worry about counting that way. When the backcourt timer gets reset to 10, or blanks out, that's when the shot clock starts.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 2, 2015 15:10:24 GMT -8
I will just agree that it should not be difficult to bring the current Men's Basketball shot clock (35 seconds) closer to the NBA shot clock (24 seconds) by making it 30 seconds instead ... while it will only change a teams' general offensive style by 5 seconds -- it should also add more possessions to each side
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 2, 2015 15:18:36 GMT -8
How about only giving 20 seconds on the shot clock after an offensive rebound? I guess that would require some new equipment or programming of clocks. Best suggestion yet. I would just go with a ten second timer for back court, and 25 second shot clock for all possessions in the front court. Put another clock above the shot clock that only counts down from 10, controlled by remote from the official closest to the inbounder. He also doesn't have to worry about counting that way. When the backcourt timer gets reset to 10, or blanks out, that's when the shot clock starts. Don't like. Removes advantage from pressing teams regarding shorter clock time in front court.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfury on Apr 2, 2015 18:36:57 GMT -8
This guy is a complete tool. Its funny that this guy talks about mens basketball being boring when women's basketball is even worse. There's no parity whatsoever in Women's. Multiple teams go undefeated the entire season then all four 1 seeds pretty much automatically go straight to the final four, then UConn wins it all, so entertaining. I don't think offense has been declining, I think that defense HAS been increasing. Teams can watch film way more easily now and counter the other team. Let's face it most teams cannot possibly hope compete in recruiting with Duke or Kentucky. College is never going to be like the NBA, nor should it try to be. Not every player can be great at shooting, but every single player can learn to play defense. Uh, no, he may be the best basketball coach in history, so he is not a tool. And I have to agree with the point that if women can play with a 30 second clock in high school and college, then why can't men? That seems like a no brainer change to the men's game and why hasn't it happened sooner? However, I do agree with you that the women's game is messed up in that their tournament games for the most part are all home games for the top seeds (due to poor attendance) so the top teams win over and over again. Those teams just keep getting all the top recruits and so there is nothing close to March Madness on the women's side. Same teams every year. BORING! Ever heard of someone named John Wooden, I heard he was ok at coaching basketball. It's easy to criticize, but I don't see him offering up any solutions. I don't find the NBA any more entertaining to watch than college because its high scoring.(in fact I find it extremely boring) He basically said he knows nothing about men's basketball other than a spectator. So he really has no place to comment.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Apr 3, 2015 8:09:22 GMT -8
a number of years ago, more than I want to remember, oral roberts had a mbb team that scored nearly 100 points a game. probably before 3's and the 35 second clock. why could they do this? have defences changed that much? was their competition that weak? with all the athletes the aztecs have we seldom see 70. I am sure the athletes of today are superior to what o.r. had. how many teams today come close to 100 points a game for a season? or, is my memory clouded by senior moments?
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 3, 2015 8:28:12 GMT -8
NIT and other tournaments played with a 30 second clock . Results scoring was up about 2.5 points per game , not great but improved. Another point with more guys leaving early to turn pro. They are usually scorers so you need to replace them , not always easy . Also means re doing your team . Maybe if the NBA just let HS guys go into the NBA and have others stay longer that start college , similar to football or baseball they would develop . Similar to Kaminsky (sp) of Wisconsin who has improved every year , look at his stats every year . IMO let the guys go from HS to the NBA , others can work on their game . Maybe let the NBA donate money to all schools to pay stipends for BB players and NFL for football players who stay in school .
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Apr 3, 2015 12:23:18 GMT -8
1. Increase the minimum age eligible for the NBA to 21 to keep stronger players in college (and let them mature as men). 2. Move out the 3 point shot line to encourage more mid range shooting. 3. Reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds.
All have been suggested. Just do it. Problem solved. Scoring goes way up.
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Apr 7, 2015 19:45:34 GMT -8
Best suggestion yet. I would just go with a ten second timer for back court, and 25 second shot clock for all possessions in the front court. Put another clock above the shot clock that only counts down from 10, controlled by remote from the official closest to the inbounder. He also doesn't have to worry about counting that way. When the backcourt timer gets reset to 10, or blanks out, that's when the shot clock starts. Don't like. Removes advantage from pressing teams regarding shorter clock time in front court. confused by your point. removes advantage of teams pressing on offense or defense? If you mean the team having a high pressure offense, running, and gunning, they could give a $#!+ if they had less time on the clock. If you mean the teams that press full court on defense, I don't see much of a difference. It is still 10 seconds to get across the line, and that leaves 25 seconds on offense in my suggestion, or in normal play as it is day. I guess the team that doesn't press gives up an advantage in regards to how much time they have when the other team doesn't press, but aren't we trying to find ways to get more possessions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 6:49:47 GMT -8
"and the bottom line is that no one can score" when guarded by Kawhi Leonard is a better quote
|
|
|
Post by tttrojan4life on Apr 8, 2015 7:13:33 GMT -8
This guy is a complete tool. Its funny that this guy talks about mens basketball being boring when women's basketball is even worse. There's no parity whatsoever in Women's. Multiple teams go undefeated the entire season then all four 1 seeds pretty much automatically go straight to the final four, then UConn wins it all, so entertaining. I don't think offense has been declining, I think that defense HAS been increasing. Teams can watch film way more easily now and counter the other team. Let's face it most teams cannot possibly hope compete in recruiting with Duke or Kentucky. College is never going to be like the NBA, nor should it try to be. Not every player can be great at shooting, but every single player can learn to play defense. Women's basketball is completely unwatchable. Those who like women's basketball because they are more "fundamental" are delusional. The lack of fundamentals in the women's game is shocking. To make matters worse, they have taken the worst elements of the men's game and incorporated them into their own. Watching games at the local rec. center with middle aged men thinking that they are Magic Johnson is far more entertaining than watching UConn. The UConn coach needs to realize that what he has done is not even remotely comparable to what most D-1 coaches have done- he has dominated a sport that no one cares about and lacks competition.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 8, 2015 8:35:21 GMT -8
If you shoot 35% from 3 you would have to shoot 52.5% to get the same points. If you shoot 50% from close and get fouled 1 out of 5 chances and shoot 70% FTs, you would have to shoot 54% to get the same points. That is why the mid range game is going away. And yet all the best players can make mid range shots. How limited is Mat Shrigley's game without the mid-range? If Spencer could make a 10 footer, our team gets so much better. Other teams beg Shep to shoot the 3, yet guard his mid range. Can Duke hit mid-range shots? Can Wisconsin? I would love to play teams that can only score from 3 and close.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 8, 2015 9:53:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 8, 2015 17:00:03 GMT -8
If you shoot 35% from 3 you would have to shoot 52.5% to get the same points. If you shoot 50% from close and get fouled 1 out of 5 chances and shoot 70% FTs, you would have to shoot 54% to get the same points. That is why the mid range game is going away. And yet all the best players can make mid range shots. How limited is Mat Shrigley's game without the mid-range? If Spencer could make a 10 footer, our team gets so much better. Other teams beg Shep to shoot the 3, yet guard his mid range. Can Duke hit mid-range shots? Can Wisconsin? I would love to play teams that can only score from 3 and close. Players settle for mid range jumpers. If that is all they can get, fine. But we should strive for open catch and shoot 3 pointers or close in shots. At the banquet Fisher said Shrigley wants to and will strive to be a more complete player next year. That will be the focus of his off season practice.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 8, 2015 17:14:30 GMT -8
And yet all the best players can make mid range shots. How limited is Mat Shrigley's game without the mid-range? If Spencer could make a 10 footer, our team gets so much better. Other teams beg Shep to shoot the 3, yet guard his mid range. Can Duke hit mid-range shots? Can Wisconsin? I would love to play teams that can only score from 3 and close. Players settle for mid range jumpers. If that is all they can get, fine. But we should strive for open catch and shoot 3 pointers or close in shots. At the banquet Fisher said Shrigley wants to and will strive to be a more complete player next year. That will be the focus of his off season practice. Your offensive philosophy is flawed and leads to clang clang clang. The better teams incorporate the mid range game. Ever seen how many San Antonio and GS score from there??? You want Shep shooting more 3 pointers next year? The opposing teams will love that and will invite it.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 9, 2015 7:51:36 GMT -8
Players settle for mid range jumpers. If that is all they can get, fine. But we should strive for open catch and shoot 3 pointers or close in shots. At the banquet Fisher said Shrigley wants to and will strive to be a more complete player next year. That will be the focus of his off season practice. Your offensive philosophy is flawed and leads to clang clang clang. The better teams incorporate the mid range game. Ever seen how many San Antonio and GS score from there??? You want Shep shooting more 3 pointers next year? The opposing teams will love that and will invite it. Shepard was much more efficient scoring from 3 than from mid range.
|
|
|
Post by dtay2004 on Apr 9, 2015 9:48:18 GMT -8
Your offensive philosophy is flawed and leads to clang clang clang. The better teams incorporate the mid range game. Ever seen how many San Antonio and GS score from there??? You want Shep shooting more 3 pointers next year? The opposing teams will love that and will invite it. Shepard was much more efficient scoring from 3 than from mid range. Is there a stat to prove this?
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 9, 2015 11:31:25 GMT -8
Your offensive philosophy is flawed and leads to clang clang clang. The better teams incorporate the mid range game. Ever seen how many San Antonio and GS score from there??? You want Shep shooting more 3 pointers next year? The opposing teams will love that and will invite it. Shepard was much more efficient scoring from 3 than from mid range. Announcer...there is a reason they are giving you that!
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 9, 2015 18:31:59 GMT -8
Shepard was much more efficient scoring from 3 than from mid range. Is there a stat to prove this? Yes. Below is from 2012. You will have to pay for this past seasons data. I will tell you that you will find it is the same - the Aztecs are much better from 3 than 2 point jumpers. www.hoop-math.com/SAN%20DIEGO%20STATE2012.htmlClick 2011 and notice that even Kawhi was better shooting 3s than 2 point jumpers.
|
|
|
Post by leastcoast on Apr 9, 2015 18:41:27 GMT -8
"and the bottom line is that no one can score" when guarded by Kawhi Leonard is a better quote the funny thing is kawhi is getting tons of press with the spurs surging towards the playoffs and kawhi putting together solid offensive numbers not only because the fast break dunks from his D or the corner 3s. the biggest development in kawhi as a go to scorer this year are the kobe-like post up fade aways and the solid mid range shooting.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 9, 2015 19:39:27 GMT -8
Is there a stat to prove this? Yes. Below is from 2012. You will have to pay for this past seasons data. I will tell you that you will find it is the same - the Aztecs are much better from 3 than 2 point jumpers. www.hoop-math.com/SAN%20DIEGO%20STATE2012.htmlClick 2011 and notice that even Kawhi was better shooting 3s than 2 point jumpers. The only people in the building that want to see Shep shoot 3s is Aztecbill and the team we are playing.
|
|