New MBB NCAA Rules For 2013-14 Season

[COYS]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/9200477/poll-results-favor-earlier-start-shorter-shot-clock-college-basketball

Looks like Duke practices might start a week or two earlier this year. The majority of coaches in an NCAA survey said they preferred starting practices earlier and moving to a 30 second shot clock. The article says that these changes could potentially go into effect for this upcoming season.

I like the idea of the shorter shot clock, however, my complaint about the defensive nature of college basketball has far more to do with the physicality that's allowed than it does the 35 seconds teams have to take a shot. I think that if a team wants to control the clock and slow the game down, they should be able to. However, this type of game-plan should not also result in the game turning into a wrestling match. Shorting the maximum length of possessions might help reduce the physicality of college basketball a little bit simply by speeding the game up, incrementally. However, I'd rather see the rules committee instruct refs to commit to calling the rampant illegal screening and holding/grabbing/bumping that occurs relentlessly off the ball.

I'm ambivalent about the earlier start for practices, mostly because I don't think I can possibly make an informed opinion. On the one hand, it seems silly to limit preseason practices to basically two weeks before the start of the first preseason games. On the other hand, basketball is a long season and these kids need to be able to be students, too. I wonder how K feels about it.

[Billy Dat]

I'm ambivalent about the earlier start for practices, mostly because I don't think I can possibly make an informed opinion. On the one hand, it seems silly to limit preseason practices to basically two weeks before the start of the first preseason games. On the other hand, basketball is a long season and these kids need to be able to be students, too. I wonder how K feels about it.

As far as this aspect is concerned, I would guess that even before the official practices begin, players are expected to be putting at least the same time and effort into their workouts as they would for an official practice. In other words, if practice lasts 2 hours on Tuesday, those same players would be in the Mike K center putting in 2 hours of work regardless of whether it was an official practice or an off season workout. As such, I don't think it will impact their "student time" that much. Bottom line, once you accept that scholarship, being on the team becomes your number one priority. Granted, the program appears to run the right way which means that being a scholar is a big part of being on the team, but they'll never have as much spare time as other students to play video games, bask on the quad and sleep 12 hours a day. And, I bet K will be very in favor of getting the extra official practice time.

[UrinalCake]

I'm against starting the season earlier, for the selfish reason that Duke already plays great in November and December and starting earlier would give other teams a chance to catch up. As for the shot clock, I agree with the article quote that a shorter clock will help defensive-minded teams. Imagine going up against Louisville's press from last year with even less time to shoot. Whenever I watch the NBA it feels like by the time they get the ball across the timeline they have to move towards getting a shot almost immediately. That adds "game pressure," to use a Bilas term, thus favoring more experienced players. I guess the negative might be that it will emphasize more individual, one-one-one play and less ball movement. Having a break-you-down guard will be really valuable for all the end of shot clock situations. But overall I'm in favor of the change.

[kmspeaks]

As far as this aspect is concerned, I would guess that even before the official practices begin, players are expected to be putting at least the same time and effort into their workouts as they would for an official practice. In other words, if practice lasts 2 hours on Tuesday, those same players would be in the Mike K center putting in 2 hours of work regardless of whether it was an official practice or an off season workout. As such, I don't think it will impact their "student time" that much. Bottom line, once you accept that scholarship, being on the team becomes your number one priority. Granted, the program appears to run the right way which means that being a scholar is a big part of being on the team, but they'll never have as much spare time as other students to play video games, bask on the quad and sleep 12 hours a day. And, I bet K will be very in favor of getting the extra official practice time.

Exactly. I played softball in college and we jokingly referred to our time spent at the field without coaches as "mandatory voluntary" practice. NCAA rules may have prohibited those workouts from being mandatory but there was no doubt in our minds we needed to be there. This rule change probably won't have a significant effect on the amount of time players spend in the gym so why not allow the coaches to be in there as well.

[Kedsy]

I guess the negative might be that it will emphasize more individual, one-one-one play and less ball movement.

I agree with this which is why I'd be against the change (not that anybody is consulting me). Personally I don't agree with the idea that scoring = excitement. Low scoring games are only "boring" or hard to watch if they're poorly played. To me, at least, a crisply run offense that happens to use most of the shot clock is a lot more fun to watch than a bunch of uncontested fast breaks or a constant barrage of one-on-one moves.

[BD80]

Syracuse should benefit greatly from the shorter clock. It takes a bit longer to break down a zone.

[Matches]

I'm fine with a shorter shot clock, but IMO it's a starting point rather than a be-all end-all. The brutish physical play is IMO a much bigger problem and needs to be addressed as well.

[ChillinDuke]

I'm in favor of a shorter shot clock.

Considering the NBA plays with 24 seconds and the women play with 30 seconds, I think this is a logical move.

35 seconds is a lot of time to play defense, and I always felt that some of our best defensive possessions were ruined by the last 5-10 seconds in the shot clock when play got frantic and led to an open shot or a clear drive.

I also think it will bring more "eyeballs" to the college game. At the very least, I doubt it would push people away. This is something that's not completely irrelevant in the financial landscape of college sports as it stands.

And finally, for those of us that don't like stall ball (me included), I think this may benefit us by giving the offense 5 less seconds to stall and requiring that the team stay at least partially engaged in the normal flow of the offense.

So yes, I'm in favor.

- Chillin

PS - I'm neutral on the start of the season. I'll watch whenever they tell me to watch.

[Kedsy]

PS - I'm neutral on the start of the season. I'll watch whenever they tell me to watch.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think they're advocating an earlier start to the games. Just an earlier start for the pre-season practices.

[Son of Jarhead]

I'm all for the earlier start to formal practice. As has already been pointed out, the players are in the gym already, so why not make it formal. Most players would benefit from more coaching and less time working on their own.

On the clock change, it seems to me that most possessions against set defenses invlove the offense looking for a shot for about 15 seconds, then if no good opportunities arrise, pulling the ball out to set up an "end of shot clock" play. So what the shorter shot clock would really eliminate, then, is 5 seconds of the point guard dribbling the ball out near the center court line waiting for the shot clock to get to 10 before they run that play, usually involving a big running out to set a screen. I don't see much change for the offense.

I do see a shorter shot clock helping the defense... 5 less seconds to have to apply that pressure D and more rushed shots by the opposing offense at the end of the 30-seconds.

All in all, I am in favor of the shorter clock because I'd like to see some standardization. It just doesn't make sense that the ladies play with a 30-second clock and the guys have 35-seconds. And it would be nice if high schools were standardized as well. With the pros at 24, and all colleges at 30, then maybe 36 for all high schools would be logical. Ah, who am I kidding... logic? Pfft.

[BD80]

As for more supervised practice time, I believe it helps:

1) the teams with the better coaching staffs,

2) the younger teams or teams dealing with significant roster turnover.

With the depth of great coaches we have on staff, (I think Jeff Capel gets overlooked too frequently in that regard), additional time with the players greatly benefits Duke.

The team that most clearly benefits from more practice time is UK with 8/9 incoming freshmen. Although not a "young" team, I think it will also benefit Duke in that we lose three seniors that were on the floor for most of the games. Extra practice time will give some younger players a chance to earn PT over more experienced but less talented players ie Alex v Josh, Matt v Tyler.

[hurleyfor3]

Exactly what problem is a shorter shot clock supposed to solve? Is Wisconsin too good or something? It's too late to punish the Big East for ugly basketball, and other than Bucky the Big Ten isn't ugly because the shot clock is 35 seconds.

The article mentions something about the review process, which is what really needs to change, and not in the direction of more, longer reviews. On several occasions during this year's tournament, teams received free timeouts because it was so dang important to get the game clock on exactly the right tenth of a second.

[CDu]

Exactly what problem is a shorter shot clock supposed to solve? Is Wisconsin too good or something? It's too late to punish the Big East for ugly basketball, and other than Bucky the Big Ten isn't ugly because the shot clock is 35 seconds.

Exactly. It's not the lack of quantity of possessions that is the problem with college basketball. It is the lack of quality of those possessions. I see no reason to assume that an increase in quantity will solve the deficit of quality.

Get the officials to call fouls when fouls are committed rather than allowing football to be played in the paint and on cutters/drivers. That will make the game more appealing.

I'm fine with the idea of changing the shot clock. But I don't think it will address the problem that the change is intended to address.

[Newton_14]

I am all for the earlier start date for practice. It is good for the players and the team. They will get 30 days to practice before the first pre-season game which is good. That's exactly how many days we got in High School in the 80's prior to our first game. We got a lot of work in and it was helpful. Good for the fans too as it should mean CTC happens even earlier. They are also changing the rule on start time of that first day of practice. Up until now the practice on that first day could not start until 5pm or later. With the new rule the coaches can set the practice start time at any time they wish on that first day which makes sense.

As for the shot clock, I am torn. I despise the 24 second shot clock. Takes away team offense and forces more one on one play and often terrible shot selection. I would much prefer the NBA Clock at 30. I think 35 is fine and the 35 second shot clock is not the issue with the college game. I don't see this helping at all. Were it me, I would set the standards of High School-40, College- 35, NBA- 30, International 20 & up- 30, International 19 & Under- 30.

Maybe 30 won't hurt the team offense but it certainly won't enhance it.

[UrinalCake]

As long as we're talking about rules changes, something has to be done about the inordinate number of charges that are called. I know Duke draws a ton of charges, and we get called a lot of names for this, and honestly I don't blame the critics one bit. I hate it. I hate it every time one of our guys crosses his arms and looks around for a guy to step in front of and then fall over. I hate that they're taught to do this, to seek out opportunities to draw charges rather than playing defense. I hate the passive mindset, and the notion of trying to work the system rather than making a good basketball play. I do think that when an offensive player is out of control, or trying to bully his way into the lane, and the defender has established good position, then that is good defense. But when your entire defensive strategy is to find opportune times to fall over and hope you get a whistle, I think it's just weak.

Ok, sorry for the rant. So how to change the rule? I think that if the offensive player's momentum is carrying him forward such that he has no way to avoid the defender who has slid over, then that should be a block. Even if the defender's feet are set, if he moved over so late that the ball handler was already leaping toward the basket, then that should be a block. Another way to address this would be to enlarge the charge circle. I'd be in favor of doing that. Ultimately though it may come down to referees all agreeing to "interpret" block/charge calls differently. If the majority of them start being called blocks, then teams will adjust and we'll see less of the fainting goat defenses.

[killerleft]

UrinalCake says: "I hate it. I hate it every time one of our guys crosses his arms and looks around for a guy to step in front of and then fall over."

Establishing position is defense in its purest form. MORE charges would result in better play, in my opinion. Let the guys (and gals) rediscover the short pull-up jumper. With a wee bit of practice, that's almost a gimme for a good shooter. Not calling charges will just result in a more helter-skelter form of basketball that values nothing but aggression.

[CDu]

UrinalCake says: "I hate it. I hate it every time one of our guys crosses his arms and looks around for a guy to step in front of and then fall over."

Establishing position is defense in its purest form. MORE charges would result in better play, in my opinion. Let the guys (and gals) rediscover the short pull-up jumper. With a wee bit of practice, that's almost a gimme for a good shooter. Not calling charges will just result in a more helter-skelter form of basketball that values nothing but aggression.

Calling charges should absolutely remain part of the game. However, calling charges correctly should be the issue to address. Many, many, MANY of the charge calls are not examples of the defender establishing position, but rather jumping in underneath an already-committed offensive player. That should not be a charge.

If you have clearly established your defensive position and the offensive player runs into you, it should be a charge. But if it is at all in doubt, I'd give the "tie to the runner" (i.e., offensive player). Because if it is at all in doubt, odds are good that the defender didn't really establish defensive position.

[ChillinDuke]

Exactly. It's not the lack of quantity of possessions that is the problem with college basketball. It is the lack of quality of those possessions. I see no reason to assume that an increase in quantity will solve the deficit of quality.

Get the officials to call fouls when fouls are committed rather than allowing football to be played in the paint and on cutters/drivers. That will make the game more appealing.

I'm fine with the idea of changing the shot clock. But I don't think it will address the problem that the change is intended to address.


I am all for the earlier start date for practice. It is good for the players and the team. They will get 30 days to practice before the first pre-season game which is good. That's exactly how many days we got in High School in the 80's prior to our first game. We got a lot of work in and it was helpful. Good for the fans too as it should mean CTC happens even earlier. They are also changing the rule on start time of that first day of practice. Up until now the practice on that first day could not start until 5pm or later. With the new rule the coaches can set the practice start time at any time they wish on that first day which makes sense.

As for the shot clock, I am torn. I despise the 24 second shot clock. Takes away team offense and forces more one on one play and often terrible shot selection. I would much prefer the NBA Clock at 30. I think 35 is fine and the 35 second shot clock is not the issue with the college game. I don't see this helping at all. Were it me, I would set the standards of High School-40, College- 35, NBA- 30, International 20 & up- 30, International 19 & Under- 30.

Maybe 30 won't hurt the team offense but it certainly won't enhance it.

I don't really know what the change is intended to address, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's as simple as 35 seconds is a heck of a lot of time to get a shot off. All one has to do is look at our stall ball routine. We literally burn almost a half a minute of game time (1.25% of the game) every time we run an offensive possession in stall ball. While I agree with both of you re: quality of the game being of utmost importance, I can't possibly see playing stall ball as a "quality" improvement for the college game. For comparison purposes, if an NBA team wanted to play stall ball they could burn less than 20 seconds per offensive possession which translates to 0.69% of the game - almost half of the impact at the college level.

My point is not so much rooted in stall ball, more so that I'm not sure the clock and quality are clearly that correlated. Especially in the NBA with the egos there, not to mention the talent where many more players per capita can go 1-on-1 with effectiveness.

IMO if a D-I college basketball team can't get a quality offensive possession in 30 seconds or less, well I think they (we) have problems much larger than the duration of the shot clock. I love good, sound, fundamental basketball as much as anyone. Why can't good, sound, fundamental basketball be run in 30 seconds? 35 is better for what reason? Because teams will resort to 1-on-1? In 30 seconds?

- Chillin

Edit - As I reread my post, I am starting to think that my view is basically that by shortening the clock you are requiring teams to "keep it moving" as opposed to managing the clock/limiting possessions. In my view, a team winning because they did a great job managing the clock is pretty lame. Make the teams play. I do find the college game to move slowly at times, and not slowly in the sense that teams are running offense. I think a not insignificant piece of college basketball has turned into clock management. And while clock management is important and a necessary part of the game, it doesn't have to be as big a component of the game.

[CDu]

I don't really know what the change is intended to address, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's as simple as 35 seconds is a heck of a lot of time to get a shot off. All one has to do is look at our stall ball routine. We literally burn almost a half a minute of game time (1.25% of the game) every time we run an offensive possession in stall ball. While I agree with both of you re: quality of the game being of utmost importance, I can't possibly see playing stall ball as a "quality" improvement for the college game. For comparison purposes, if an NBA team wanted to play stall ball they could burn less than 20 seconds per offensive possession which translates to 0.69% of the game - almost half of the impact at the college level.

My point is not so much rooted in stall ball, more so that I'm not sure the clock and quality are clearly that correlated. Especially in the NBA with the egos there, not to mention the talent where many more players per capita can go 1-on-1 with effectiveness.

IMO if a D-I college basketball team can't get a quality offensive possession in 30 seconds or less, well I think they (we) have problems much larger than the duration of the shot clock. I love good, sound, fundamental basketball as much as anyone. Why can't good, sound, fundamental basketball be run in 30 seconds? 35 is better for what reason? Because teams will resort to 1-on-1? In 30 seconds?

- Chillin

Like I said, I have absolutely no problem with going to 30 seconds. I just don't think that such a change will make ugly games any more watchable, which is the argument that many are making in support of the shorter clock.

[ChillinDuke]

Like I said, I have absolutely no problem with going to 30 seconds. I just don't think that such a change will make ugly games any more watchable, which is the argument that many are making in support of the shorter clock.

Gotcha.

I do wonder if the "more watchable" argument stems from the fact that most people do not watch college basketball for the reasons I (and, I assume, you) watch college basketball. To the extent that games will be moving at a slightly brisker pace likely would have a net "more watchable" effect across the viewing public as a whole. No evidence to back that up, but seems logical enough.

We on this board are not "normal" college basketball fans.

- Chillin

[COYS]

Calling charges should absolutely remain part of the game. However, calling charges correctly should be the issue to address. Many, many, MANY of the charge calls are not examples of the defender establishing position, but rather jumping in underneath an already-committed offensive player. That should not be a charge.

If you have clearly established your defensive position and the offensive player runs into you, it should be a charge. But if it is at all in doubt, I'd give the "tie to the runner" (i.e., offensive player). Because if it is at all in doubt, odds are good that the defender didn't really establish defensive position.

I agree that the block/charge call is the most commonly bungled call in basketball. However, part of that has to do with the fact that charges are never called unless the defender falls down. By rule, a defender falling down is not necessary for a charge to be called. However, other than the occasional push-off call, offensive fouls are rarely called on the ball handler unless they run into a defensive player who subsequently falls down. This means that "flopping" is the smart play for a defender to make when they think they may be in position and are definitely going to absorb contact. If they stay on their feet, they are almost guaranteed to be called for a block even if their position is well established.

I think there are a lot of instances when an offensive player should be guilty of a charge (such as a big post player backing down a defender who has established position by bumping into them, repeatedly, even though I realize that was a big part of Mason's game this past season) even when the defender doesn't fall down. Similarly, I think the reason for the high frequency of bang-bang last second step-in charges like the ones you talk about above happen because the defender knows that if they step in and fall down, they have a higher probability of getting a charge call. If falling down is no longer a prerequisite for drawing a charge, then defenders who step in will stay on their feet, more often, which will make those types of plays significantly safer, overall.

[NashvilleDevil]

Go watch the Dawkins reverse dunk against Navy. In today's game he would be called for a charge. I do agree that something needs to be done on how these plays are called.

[CDu]

I agree that the block/charge call is the most commonly bungled call in basketball. However, part of that has to do with the fact that charges are never called unless the defender falls down. By rule, a defender falling down is not necessary for a charge to be called. However, other than the occasional push-off call, offensive fouls are rarely called on the ball handler unless they run into a defensive player who subsequently falls down. This means that "flopping" is the smart play for a defender to make when they think they may be in position and are definitely going to absorb contact. If they stay on their feet, they are almost guaranteed to be called for a block even if their position is well established.

I think there are a lot of instances when an offensive player should be guilty of a charge (such as a big post player backing down a defender who has established position by bumping into them, repeatedly, even though I realize that was a big part of Mason's game this past season) even when the defender doesn't fall down. Similarly, I think the reason for the high frequency of bang-bang last second step-in charges like the ones you talk about above happen because the defender knows that if they step in and fall down, they have a higher probability of getting a charge call. If falling down is no longer a prerequisite for drawing a charge, then defenders who step in will stay on their feet, more often, which will make those types of plays significantly safer, overall.

I completely agree. I'd say that, of the block/charge calls made, the charge is overcalled. But I'd also say that of the block/charge calls not made, the charge is possibly undercalled. In any case, I agree that the charge call absolutely should be a part of basketball, but it needs to be called MUCH more accurately than it currently is called.

[UrinalCake]

I think the way the block/charge is called in the NBA is closer to how I'd like to see it in college. In the most egregious cases the charge is called, but if there's any doubt it tends to be a block. The elite defenders like Shane are able to draw charges, but you can't just lazily step in front of someone and expect to get the call.

I don't want to see a game of pull-up jump shooting. This isn't Hoosiers. I want to see guys driving to the basket and attacking the rim without being penalized. I think by cleaning up the block/charge calls as well as the general physicality that is allowed, we can get back to a more free flowing and enjoyable game to watch.

[CDu]

I think the way the block/charge is called in the NBA is closer to how I'd like to see it in college. In the most egregious cases the charge is called, but if there's any doubt it tends to be a block. The elite defenders like Shane are able to draw charges, but you can't just lazily step in front of someone and expect to get the call.

I don't want to see a game of pull-up jump shooting. This isn't Hoosiers. I want to see guys driving to the basket and attacking the rim without being penalized. I think by cleaning up the block/charge calls as well as the general physicality that is allowed, we can get back to a more free flowing and enjoyable game to watch.

Exactly. Call the block/charge correctly. Call the fouls before the paint turns into an MMA ring. Do those things, and the game will be more fun to watch, regardless of the shot clock.

[tommy]

I think that if the offensive player's momentum is carrying him forward such that he has no way to avoid the defender who has slid over, then that should be a block. Even if the defender's feet are set, if he moved over so late that the ball handler was already leaping toward the basket, then that should be a block.

It is.

[CDu]

It is.

In theory, it is. In practice? Not so consistently. Which is part of the problem.

[rsvman]

I'm in favor of a shorter shot clock.

.....35 seconds is a lot of time to play defense, and I always felt that some of our best defensive possessions were ruined by the last 5-10 seconds in the shot clock when play got frantic and led to an open shot or a clear drive.......
...

Even with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds, there will still be a last 5-10 seconds of the shot clock, and the same thing is likely to happen. The reason is happens is not because the shot clock was 35 seconds long, but because it is winding down. Things get frantic when time runs out. Shortening the shot clock just makes time run out sooner.

I think it's the exact wrong thing to do. Shortening the shot clock is potentially going to hurt Duke more than it does some other teams, given our reliance on "stall ball" to close out games. I'd actually be in favor of lengthening the shot clock to 40 or even 45 seconds. I don't think basketball is boring just because games are low scoring. I'd much rather not be subjected to the NBA- or All-Star-type basketball when what I'm trying to watch is college basketball.

[killerleft]

In theory, it is. In practice? Not so consistently. Which is part of the problem.

That is the WHOLE of the problem. It will always be that way, unless defense becomes such a dirty word that no one is allowed to play it. The block/charge is at the heart of the issue of defense in general. Who got there first? Not just at the basket, but anywhere on the court. If the powers that be want to legislate defense out of basketball, so be it. But until they do that contested space between players and the basket (or anywhere, really) will always be fought over. Duh to me, and you, if we don't understand that.

Deny the spot to the other guy. Basketball.

[jimsumner]

Even with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds, there will still be a last 5-10 seconds of the shot clock, and the same thing is likely to happen. The reason is happens is not because the shot clock was 35 seconds long, but because it is winding down. Things get frantic when time runs out. Shortening the shot clock just makes time run out sooner.

I think it's the exact wrong thing to do. Shortening the shot clock is potentially going to hurt Duke more than it does some other teams, given our reliance on "stall ball" to close out games. I'd actually be in favor of lengthening the shot clock to 40 or even 45 seconds. I don't think basketball is boring just because games are low scoring. I'd much rather not be subjected to the NBA- or All-Star-type basketball when what I'm trying to watch is college basketball.

I'm not sure Duke relies on "stall-ball" to close out games any more often than any other team. We just think so because Duke's ahead so often.

Give any college-basketball coach a seven-point lead and the ball with five minutes left and they're putting on the brakes. The clock is your friend in that situation and it's a rational risk/reward decision.

[rsvman]

....
Give any college-basketball coach a seven-point lead and the ball with five minutes left and they're putting on the brakes. ......

Tell that to Dave Rose at BYU, or to pre-this season Ol' Roy, for that matter. There are other coaches, as well, who believe that it's better to continue to use the style of play that got you the lead, or that it's better to "keep the foot on the pedal," or whatever other euphemism they use. Or they just believe that their team will perform worse if they have to change to a different and less practiced style of play.

I am peronally a huge fan of stall ball, and I think that K employs it masterfully. It will be harder to close out games that way when the shot clock is shorter. Coach K may have to change his ideas about when to initiate the strategy, or subtly change the way it is run.

That was only a part of my point. I do not believe that "faster basketball=better basketball." I can see why the shot clock was instituted in the first place, but I think that there is a happy medium; a length of shot clock, if you will, that maximizes all the benefits. In other words, a shot clock duration that precludes four corners and forces teams to play basketball but also allows for a wide degree of offensive strategies. I believe that 35 to 45 seconds is about where that "sweet spot" lies. Shortening it more threatens to change the game substantially, and largely for the worse, just as lengthening it much more would.

[Dennis Miller voice] Of course, all of this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. [/Dennis Miller voice]

[vick]

Tell that to Dave Rose at BYU, or to pre-this season Ol' Roy, for that matter. There are other coaches, as well, who believe that it's better to continue to use the style of play that got you the lead, or that it's better to "keep the foot on the pedal," or whatever other euphemism they use. Or they just believe that their team will perform worse if they have to change to a different and less practiced style of play.

I am peronally a huge fan of stall ball, and I think that K employs it masterfully. It will be harder to close out games that way when the shot clock is shorter. Coach K may have to change his ideas about when to initiate the strategy, or subtly change the way it is run.

That was only a part of my point. I do not believe that "faster basketball=better basketball." I can see why the shot clock was instituted in the first place, but I think that there is a happy medium; a length of shot clock, if you will, that maximizes all the benefits. In other words, a shot clock duration that precludes four corners and forces teams to play basketball but also allows for a wide degree of offensive strategies. I believe that 35 to 45 seconds is about where that "sweet spot" lies. Shortening it more threatens to change the game substantially, and largely for the worse, just as lengthening it much more would.

[Dennis Miller voice] Of course, all of this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. [/Dennis Miller voice]

I dunno. When Bo Ryan is saying he's OK with it, I find it hard to believe coaches who prefer a slower pace are really going to have to substantially change their strategy. The reality, IMO, is that no college offense is really sophisticated enough to require 35 seconds, let alone 45, to execute. What I think you actually see more often is an offensive set run to somewhere in the ~15 second range, and if they don't get the shot they want, it's just pulled out, then stalled, then an iso is run at the last few seconds.

Also, and it's not a huge difference, but at the margin, a longer shot clock encourages interminable end-of-game fouling situations because it's harder to play straight defense and have a chance at getting the ball back. That is, I think, a very clear positive to shorter shot clocks.

[ChillinDuke]

Tell that to Dave Rose at BYU, or to pre-this season Ol' Roy, for that matter. There are other coaches, as well, who believe that it's better to continue to use the style of play that got you the lead, or that it's better to "keep the foot on the pedal," or whatever other euphemism they use. Or they just believe that their team will perform worse if they have to change to a different and less practiced style of play.

I am peronally a huge fan of stall ball, and I think that K employs it masterfully. It will be harder to close out games that way when the shot clock is shorter. Coach K may have to change his ideas about when to initiate the strategy, or subtly change the way it is run.

That was only a part of my point. I do not believe that "faster basketball=better basketball." I can see why the shot clock was instituted in the first place, but I think that there is a happy medium; a length of shot clock, if you will, that maximizes all the benefits. In other words, a shot clock duration that precludes four corners and forces teams to play basketball but also allows for a wide degree of offensive strategies. I believe that 35 to 45 seconds is about where that "sweet spot" lies. Shortening it more threatens to change the game substantially, and largely for the worse, just as lengthening it much more would.

[Dennis Miller voice] Of course, all of this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. [/Dennis Miller voice]

I couldn't agree more with the bolded. Faster basketball surely does not equal better basketball. But just as surely, slower basketball does not equal better basketball. Which further leads me to agree with your statement: a happy medium.

Reasonable minds can differ, but when the NBA and even women's college basketball have determined their happy medium shot clock to be less time than men's college basketball, well I'd say the evidence at hand is leaning to the 30-second side.

- Chillin

[Bluedog]

Coach K has said in the past he thinks college should go to a 24 second shot clock to be consistent with the NBA. But I think his rationale was more than he believes that the rules should be the same across different levels; not that he thinks 24 seconds is necessarily better. And since the NBA has the ultimate power and can do whatever it wants, it's obviously college that would have to change to follow the NBA's standards.

I don't know my feeling about it. I do think Duke uses the shot clock to its advantage more than a lot of team because of Duke's great coaching of time management, so it could hurt us in that regard a bit. But, in general, I think it's going to make upsets ever so slightly less likely due to an increased number of possessions. More possessions = more likely the "better" team wins. And I think 30 seconds is certainly reasonable...but I also think 35 seconds is reasonable too.

[-jk]

I think the 5 fewer seconds won't make a bit of difference to the quality of ball. Reigning in the physicality is more the ticket. It's not the block/charge, either, so long as it's not a flop.

Ban hand-checks and driving push-offs altogether and call every illegal screen. That'll open up the game so players of either team can move around much more freely. That will help the game flow, well at least after a lost season of foul-fests while the players get used to the idea.

-jk

[Jarhead]

I couldn't agree more with the bolded. Faster basketball surely does not equal better basketball. But just as surely, slower basketball does not equal better basketball. Which further leads me to agree with your statement: a happy medium.

Reasonable minds can differ, but when the NBA and even women's college basketball have determined their happy medium shot clock to be less time than men's college basketball, well I'd say the evidence at hand is leaning to the 30-second side.

- Chillin

If I had my druthers all levels should be on the same shot clock rule, but that rule should be the rule used internationally. I think even the NBA would be better off with a 30 second clock. Their 24 second clock has a lot to do with the watchability of the NBA. If they don't get a shot in transition then one guy gets the ball and forces his way into a lucky shot or a silly miss.

As for the block-charge rule, someone suggested doing away with the charge call, but that kind of changes it into a form of rugby or lacrosse. If you have the ball you can run into anybody. When do we start wearing pads and helmets?

[kmspeaks]

If I had my druthers all levels should be on the same shot clock rule, but that rule should be the rule used internationally. I think even the NBA would be better off with a 30 second clock. Their 24 second clock has a lot to do with the watchability of the NBA. If they don't get a shot in transition then one guy gets the ball and forces his way into a lucky shot or a silly miss.

As for the block-charge rule, someone suggested doing away with the charge call, but that kind of changes it into a form of rugby or lacrosse. If you have the ball you can run into anybody. When do we start wearing pads and helmets?

You mean like these?
3343

and these?
3344

[UrinalCake]

Here's an update on what the NCAA decided
http://m.espn.go.com/ncb/story?storyId=9259772

No change to the shot clock or to the start of practices. More use of instant replay will be allowed at the end of games. And most significantly, the block/charge rule will be interpreted differently:

"Now, Hyland said the defensive player cannot move into the space once the offensive player has started his upward motion with the ball."

"Hyland said by moving it to when the dribbler begins his upward motion for a shot or a pass, it pushes back a few steps to allow the official more time to make the call. He said this may lead to more blocking calls."

I think this is in line with what most of us wanted. It's not a charge if the shooter has started the shooting motion. Previously he had to have left the ground, which is much to late for him to redirect his movement around the defender. I think the committee got it right; let's hope the refs start calling it correctly and consistently. Unfortunately, nothing was done to address the overall physicality of the game.

[TruBlu]

Here's an update on what the NCAA decided
http://m.espn.go.com/ncb/story?storyId=9259772

No change to the shot clock or to the start of practices. More use of instant replay will be allowed at the end of games. And most significantly, the block/charge rule will be interpreted differently:

"Now, Hyland said the defensive player cannot move into the space once the offensive player has started his upward motion with the ball."

"Hyland said by moving it to when the dribbler begins his upward motion for a shot or a pass, it pushes back a few steps to allow the official more time to make the call. He said this may lead to more blocking calls."

I think this is in line with what most of us wanted. It's not a charge if the shooter has started the shooting motion. Previously he had to have left the ground, which is much to late for him to redirect his movement around the defender. I think the committee got it right; let's hope the refs start calling it correctly and consistently. Unfortunately, nothing was done to address the overall physicality of the game.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/09/4227699/college-basketball-rules-changes.html

According to the article from the front page, something is being done to clean up the overall physicality. ESPN apparently didn't include it in their story.

I am totally in agreement that the college game needs a "cleaning up". This sounds like a good first step.

[Kedsy]

More use of instant replay will be allowed at the end of games.

More use of instant replay at the end of games? I thought it was kind of farcical already. Stop the action for five minutes to put three tenths of a second back on the clock, giving teams an extra time out (thus rewarding those with poor clock management skills and in a way penalizing those who managed their time outs properly). Took the flow out of a lot of games in this year's tournament, IMO.

[MCFinARL]

More use of instant replay at the end of games? I thought it was kind of farcical already. Stop the action for five minutes to put three tenths of a second back on the clock, giving teams an extra time out (thus rewarding those with poor clock management skills and in a way penalizing those who managed their time outs properly). Took the flow out of a lot of games in this year's tournament, IMO.

Yes, I agree. I think the new rule will allow instant replay in the last two minutes to make sure out of bounds calls are correct when multiple players have touched the ball. Like the clock situations, though, these will slow the game to a painful level. And the underlying premise for all of these situations is essentially false--lots of time runs off the clock earlier in games unnoticed, and lots of out of bounds calls earlier in games are questionable; these can affect the game outcome every bit as much as the ones in the last two minutes. It's just that the fans/teams tend to notice and remember the ones at the end of the game.

[Spret42]

I don't think rational people who are against the block/charge are saying it should be taken out of the game. I think most people, myself included just want it to be something that is much more rare, with more "no calls" etc. The charge is something that is very difficult to draw according to the rules. In the last 15 years it has been called seemingly where ever a defender puts his hands over his groin and falls over.

Too many charges are called where the guy drawing it was a help defender who was clearly late etc. and yet it wasn't necessarily a block either. Referees should simply start looking at the defender, who is usually sprawled on his back and looking up at the ref, and simply respond with, "You should get up and start playing again before someone steps on you young man."

I remember a coach telling me that you only try to draw a charge when opposing player has his head down and isn't looking where he is going or if you don't feel like you would have to "scramble" to get there in time. If the offensive players head is up and he is under control on drive to the basket, you move with him, get in the air with him and try to alter or block his shot.(Think Bill Russell)

There have been far too many backcourt one-on-one charge calls where the defender sort of half skips, half slides in front of his man and has barely gotten his feet on ground when the contact occurs. That is the kind of thing that needs to be called a block every time.

Way too much stepping in and falling over in college basketball over the last 15-20 years.

[killerleft]

Changing the block/charge rule does absolutely nothing to help refs get the call right. The point at which they work from still leaves them with the same decision. The temptation to "cheat" the purpose of the rule switches to the offensive guy. The block/charge call will always be hard to legislate. The only way to combat this is to outlaw defense - which seems to be the direction this rule change is going.

Fundamental defense suffers. The new wrinkle on offense? The player starts raising the ball earlier in an attempt to draw defensive fouls by just jumping into defenders under the basket. Will it be as ludicrous as some of the "jump-in" calls the offensive guy gets when he fakes an outside shot?

[Spret42]

Changing the block/charge rule does absolutely nothing to help refs get the call right. The point at which they work from still leaves them with the same decision. The temptation to "cheat" the purpose of the rule switches to the offensive guy. The block/charge call will always be hard to legislate. The only way to combat this is to outlaw defense - which seems to be the direction this rule change is going.

Fundamental defense suffers. The new wrinkle on offense? The player starts raising the ball earlier in an attempt to draw defensive fouls by just jumping into defenders under the basket. Will it be as ludicrous as some of the "jump-in" calls the offensive guy gets when he fakes an outside shot?

Probably a bit true. Which is why a rule change isn't entirely necessary, refs need to view the block/charge play as more of a block/no call/charge play. This way each side of the equation, offense and defense, is forced to play under control and not risk playing themselves out of position (defense) or a ending up trapped in the air or taking a bad shot (offense) when a no call is made. They will be punished trying to draw a call that wasn't there to get. It encourages both sides to play more under control. It controls offensive and defensive aggression. There should always be a neutral ground between "combatants."

[OZZIE4DUKE]

The block/charge rule really comes down to this: If Duke has the ball it's a block. If Duke is on defense, it's a charge. Been that way for years. Just ask a Maryland fan... or Billy Packer. :rolleyes::cool:

[NSDukeFan]

I don't think rational people who are against the block/charge are saying it should be taken out of the game. I think most people, myself included just want it to be something that is much more rare, with more "no calls" etc. The charge is something that is very difficult to draw according to the rules. In the last 15 years it has been called seemingly where ever a defender puts his hands over his groin and falls over.

Too many charges are called where the guy drawing it was a help defender who was clearly late etc. and yet it wasn't necessarily a block either. Referees should simply start looking at the defender, who is usually sprawled on his back and looking up at the ref, and simply respond with, "You should get up and start playing again before someone steps on you young man."

I remember a coach telling me that you only try to draw a charge when opposing player has his head down and isn't looking where he is going or if you don't feel like you would have to "scramble" to get there in time. If the offensive players head is up and he is under control on drive to the basket, you move with him, get in the air with him and try to alter or block his shot.(Think Bill Russell)

There have been far too many backcourt one-on-one charge calls where the defender sort of half skips, half slides in front of his man and has barely gotten his feet on ground when the contact occurs. That is the kind of thing that needs to be called a block every time.

Way too much stepping in and falling over in college basketball over the last 15-20 years.

It doesn't sound like the back court charge call would be affected, but hopefully the holding, forearm shove and hold will now be called. Sulaimon could have even more of a monster year.

[Spret42]

The block/charge rule really comes down to this: If Duke has the ball it's a block. If Duke is on defense, it's a charge. Been that way for years. Just ask a Maryland fan... or Billy Packer. :rolleyes::cool:

HaHa.

Well I wouldn't go as far as to say all that! That is just irrational. I will say that the over calling of charges in college basketball has benefited Duke at times, especially at home, but that is basketball and human nature. Duke is known to to be well coached at drawing the charge and at times it has meant some charges being called where a no-call would have been more accurate. Not a big deal. Every sport has it's "Achilles Heal," and basketball's is that refereeing can affect the outcome more than any other sport.

[greybeard]

Exactly. I played softball in college and we jokingly referred to our time spent at the field without coaches as "mandatory voluntary" practice. NCAA rules may have prohibited those workouts from being mandatory but there was no doubt in our minds we needed to be there. This rule change probably won't have a significant effect on the amount of time players spend in the gym so why not allow the coaches to be in there as well.

Playing ball without coaches telling you what to do is a good thing that is vastly different than the other. Playing to play is an opportunity to experiment with all sorts of changes, experiment in what works for you as an individual. You cast aside what is less effective in favor what is better. You figure out the way that say Seth gets inside his defender, cuts in so the guy is locked behind him and then makes decisions about how to finish with little elevation and risk. You watch and you play with it.

On the other hand, coaches tell you both what to do but more importantly "how to" do it. How to instructions do not work. Unsupervised (uncoached play) provides an opportunity for players to forge bonds that competition for a coach's approval stifles.

I am not in favor of starting practice earlier.

This is about money plain and simply. So is the 30 second shot clock. There is no explanation for either rule change than that we allow a team to be ready earlier to execute on team defense and offense sooner and increase scoring, also providing less incentive to play solid half court defense in favor of glitz on fast breaks with dunk finishes. Pick and roll, pick and pop, elements of the flex thrown in, and half court sets become unimaginative.

I'm not a fan of either rule change.

The same type changes were implemented in Men's LAX this season, for the sole purpose of increasing scoring and making run outs easier. The ironic thing is that it seems to me that teams that have the best mid field traps that cause turnovers in bringing the ball up in non fast-break fashion will inevitably cause everyone to play run and shoot style. If the other team devotes extra men to steal it at mid field and you beat the traps and don't make them pay by attacking with man advantage configurations the more intense the pressure you face. The run and shoot game follows. The quick starts it seems to me are designed to advantage the higher end teams with deep benches. The more artful, shorter bench teams are at a significant disadvantage.

I think that all these changes take the elan out of these games and make them into show-time displays. That makes good highlights but takes the game away of guys with skills but lack the size and physical gifts of the 6 foot 185 plus players that are coming in every increasing numbers to dominate the sport, the UNC attack notwithstanding as well as my boys from Ithaca. Cornell beat Maryland by forgoing the break, beating the press the vast majority of times, making Maryland work on defense and consequently guarding against run outs and great face off and ground ball work. Oh, they were also excellent in holding onto the ball while taking strategic scoring chances that maintained possession. reading slides poof various ploys to stop Pannell and then making them pay when Pannell read the slides and his teams read his reads. Soon, that game will be a thing of the past, as will the Pannells, Bitters, etc. Sad.

Who knows how much the travel and time spent of these super long seasons on any student on campus including the players undermines what their college experience can be.

Bad rules, if you ask me.

[UrinalCake]

I will say that the over calling of charges in college basketball has benefited Duke at times, especially at home, but that is basketball and human nature. Duke is known to to be well coached at drawing the charge and at times it has meant some charges being called where a no-call would have been more accurate.

I agree that the rule change will probably hurt Duke. I don't care. I still want the change to be made. As I've said before, I absolutely abhor the way we work so hard to draw charges rather than playing defense. I will be happy if we are able to adjust and play more straight up. I thought Ryan played much more straight up defense the first half of this past season, before the injury. And he was great - he altered shots, even blocked a few, and when he didnt he was in position to rebound. But then after his injury he resorted to his fainting goat defense that made me want to punch a baby seal.

Coach K even spoke out not too long ago and said that he thinks too many charges are called. Which makes him sound like a huge hypocrit when his teams draws so many. So again, I couldn't be happier about the change to the rule and I hope the refs start calling it correctly and fairly.

[killerleft]

I agree that the rule change will probably hurt Duke. I don't care. I still want the change to be made. As I've said before, I absolutely abhor the way we work so hard to draw charges rather than playing defense. I will be happy if we are able to adjust and play more straight up. I thought Ryan played much more straight up defense the first half of this past season, before the injury. And he was great - he altered shots, even blocked a few, and when he didnt he was in position to rebound. But then after his injury he resorted to his fainting goat defense that made me want to punch a baby seal.

Coach K even spoke out not too long ago and said that he thinks too many charges are called. Which makes him sound like a huge hypocrit when his teams draws so many. So again, I couldn't be happier about the change to the rule and I hope the refs start calling it correctly and fairly.

A coach that doesn't use the rules to his advantage is probably not a very good coach. As I suggested earlier, the new rule will be tested thoroughly to see what the advantages are to just lowering one's head and happily charging down the lane. Coach K will certainly be taking advantage of the rule as soon as he figures out how the refs are going to usually call the play. As we all know, the refs will be as scattershot as always with their interpretations, and the arguments will continue just like before.

The rules changes for "arm bars" and the like are where the game can be changed to make it more fluid. Somehow, I don't think things will change much until much of the holding and pushing are legislated out of the game. Let's see what happens there with the new rules.

I would much rather they kept the block/charge the same and just called all the holding, pushing, and illegal picks/screens.

[Kedsy]

I thought Ryan played much more straight up defense the first half of this past season, before the injury. And he was great - he altered shots, even blocked a few, and when he didnt he was in position to rebound. But then after his injury he resorted to his fainting goat defense that made me want to punch a baby seal.

Ryan blocked 1.7 shots per game before the injury and 1.5 bpg after he returned. I don't have his exact block percentages in those two periods, but I believe they were relatively similar (meaning the pct was a bit higher before the injury but not very much). And the difference between 1.7 and 1.5 bpg can probably be attributed to the weaker schedule played in the early period compared to the latter period. So while I personally would say there wasn't much difference in his overall defense in the two periods (disagreeing with your characterization), there certainly wasn't much of a difference in Ryan's block rate.

Interestingly enough, Ryan's block rate was highest his freshman and sophomore years, almost as high but a little lower his senior year, and lowest his junior year. I've never seen a "charge rate" or "charge percentage" stat, but I strongly doubt it has a negative correlation with Ryan's block percentages.

[UrinalCake]

Ok, fair enough. I was going more by the "eye test" regarding Ryan's defense. It looked to me like he was making more of an effort to stand up to his defender during the first half of this past season. In previous years he would simply cross his arms and wait for a chance to fall over. I thought his defense was better when he challenged his man, especially from the standpoint of rebounding after a missed shot. When you fall over it's all or nothing - if you don't get the charge then you've automatically conceded either a bucket, a blocking foul, or a missed shot and an easy offensive rebound.

I don't have the numbers to back up which style of defense was more effective. Maybe I'm totally wong. And it LOOKED like he went back to this style of defense after his injury.

[wilko]

Interesting thoughts...

As far as shorter shot clock...
I think folks will accuse of running up the score. If we HAVE to shoot more we will score more.

As far as the block/charge...
I have no interest in the "beauty" of the game as it were. Duke winning IS my entertainment and I'm for whatever facilitates THAT outcome. The end result is more important to me than flash or creating athletic hyperbole.

As long as we play the game on a fixed court size with the goals in fixed positions and allow dribbling and passing, the game is inherently one of positioning on the court. To discount that aspect is folly.

The D's job is to not allow points and get the ball back.. I think you'll see more grabbing fouls to keep folks from getting airborne to dunk. If a guy slips by. Make him earn it at the line. I don't think it will do what folks are intending.

NOTHING wrong with making someone pull up for a jumper or make a pass.

[COYS]

Interesting thoughts...


NOTHING wrong with making someone pull up for a jumper or make a pass.

I'm with you on this last point, even though I'm all for changing the way charges are called. While the offensive player should be given the benefit of the doubt on most of the scenarios mentioned above, I think there are others where the defender should earn more respect. As I've mentioned before, the BIGGEST problem with offensive fouls that are called on the ball handler is that they almost are NEVER called unless the defender falls down. This leads to plays where guys stand in place and fall to the ground when they're hit when, if they had balanced their weight differently, would have no need to fall down to the ground. I do think that the defense often gets rewarded for stepping under guys who have already started their upward motion. I'm all for making that call less frequently. However, I think that in an ideal world, offensive fouls would be called when the offensive player actually commits the foul, rather than only when the defender falls down. This issue is most common in the post with guys lowering their shoulders to create space when maneuvering on the blocks and on the perimeter when the ball handler pushes off with his off hand. A defender who stands his ground and tries to absorb the opposing player's hits with the shoulder is often not rewarded if the offensive player is bigger and stronger. The defender simply moves them out of the way and scores. However, a post defender who anticipates the offensive player lowering his shoulder and falls down is taking a big risk. They either get a no call and give up an easy basket, or actually draw a charge. I'd like to see an offensive foul called when the defender remains standing. This eliminates the incentive to fall down, which is, honestly, bad for everyone. It increases the risk of injury, is a zero sum game for the defender, and is otherwise ugly. It will also lead to less flopping.

[Newton_14]

Interesting thoughts...

As far as shorter shot clock...
I think folks will accuse of running up the score. If we HAVE to shoot more we will score more.

As far as the block/charge...
I have no interest in the "beauty" of the game as it were. Duke winning IS my entertainment and I'm for whatever facilitates THAT outcome. The end result is more important to me than flash or creating athletic hyperbole.

As long as we play the game on a fixed court size with the goals in fixed positions and allow dribbling and passing, the game is inherently one of positioning on the court. To discount that aspect is folly.

The D's job is to not allow points and get the ball back.. I think you'll see more grabbing fouls to keep folks from getting airborne to dunk. If a guy slips by. Make him earn it at the line. I don't think it will do what folks are intending.

NOTHING wrong with making someone pull up for a jumper or make a pass.

Shot clock is not changing. It will remain at 35 seconds