Excellent read: Loyola Marymount's style and today's often boring game

[NM Duke Fan]

At issue, Bilas and others say, is the quality of the product on the court. The 25th anniversary of LMU's celebrated team stirs memories of a more entertaining era in the sport and illustrates how much the game has changed on the court, and not necessarily for the better.

Westhead and former LSU coach Dale Brown — two coaches who engaged in a 148-141 overtime thriller won by LSU in 1990 — agree that much of the college basketball played today is not all that easy on the eyes.

"It is boring," Kimble said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2015/03/05/loyola-marymount-hank-gathers-death-25-years-bo-kimble-paul-westhead/24447175/

[CDu]

I am not one who looks at the score as a measure of the quality of the game and its entertainment value. I can certainly enjoy a low-scoring battle. The 69-63 win over UVa, for example, was an extremely entertaining game. In fact, I'd venture that it was more entertaining than the 148-141 game referenced in the original post.

But I do agree that, on average, the game is more boring now. I think a big part of the difference is the physicality of the game. It is just a much more physical game now than it was 20-25 years ago. And as such, the quality of play has diminished. It's much harder to make shots when you're getting beaten on all game.

The other big factor is that we have diluted the quality. In the old days, guys stayed in school longer (resulting in better chemistry/continuity and better players on the floor) and they tended to go more often to the top schools. So the top 25-30 schools were typically stockpiling most/all of the best talent. So games played by the best teams were usually very high-quality affairs, as they involved better, more experienced, more cohesive teams than today's games do. I suspect that the games against the lesser teams were not very interesting, as the big boys would often steamroll the less fortunate due to a wider gap in talent and a smaller gap in experience/cohesiveness.

Add the decreases in experience/cohesiveness to the increased physicality of play, and you have a recipe for a lower-quality product on the floor.

[NM Duke Fan]

I am not one who looks at the score as a measure of the quality of the game and its entertainment value. I can certainly enjoy a low-scoring battle. The 69-63 win over UVa, for example, was an extremely entertaining game. In fact, I'd venture that it was more entertaining than the 148-141 game referenced in the original post.

But I do agree that, on average, the game is more boring now. I think a big part of the difference is the physicality of the game. It is just a much more physical game now than it was 20-25 years ago. And as such, the quality of play has diminished. It's much harder to make shots when you're getting beaten on all game.

The other big factor is that we have diluted the quality. In the old days, guys stayed in school longer (resulting in better chemistry/continuity and better players on the floor) and they tended to go more often to the top schools. So the top 25-30 schools were typically stockpiling most/all of the best talent. So games played by the best teams were usually very high-quality affairs, as they involved better, more experienced, more cohesive teams than today's games do. I suspect that the games against the lesser teams were not very interesting, as the big boys would often steamroll the less fortunate due to a wider gap in talent and a smaller gap in experience/cohesiveness.

Add the decreases in experience/cohesiveness to the increased physicality of play, and you have a recipe for a lower-quality product on the floor.

Many of the games in the Big Least are wrestling matches. I also think about some Temple games from the past.

There is actually a plethora of speedy, quick guards at many levels these days, which always shows up in the tournament. But if shooting is poor, they end up running up and down the floor over and over, within games that still have a moderate score.

Growing up, at NMSU we had some fabulous teams even though they were not a top school. But all of a sudden with players like Sam Lacey, Jimmy Collins and Charlie Chris we were a national power. Enough of a critical mass had been achieved with a sufficient number of great players. Occasionally that happens with mid majors now too.

I am not sure how to make the game less boring via shot clocks and such, like Coach K mentioned. But consistency from the refs would enable teams to play the game, instead of stopping and starting constantly due to ticky tack fouls. Or letting players get constantly mugged and preventing them from being able to make effective post moves like in the old school days...

[freshmanjs]

college basketball is the only major spectator sport that i know of where the spectators are not watching the best athletes of their age group. that, to me, is the real cause of entertainment reduction.

[-jk]

Many of the games in the Big Least are wrestling matches. I also think about some Temple games from the past.

There is actually a plethora of speedy, quick guards at many levels these days, which always shows up in the tournament. But if shooting is poor, they end up running up and down the floor over and over, within games that still have a moderate score.

Growing up, at NMSU we had some fabulous teams even though they were not a top school. But all of a sudden with players like Sam Lacey, Jimmy Collins and Charlie Chris we were a national power. Enough of a critical mass had been achieved with a sufficient number of great players. Occasionally that happens with mid majors now too.

I am not sure how to make the game less boring via shot clocks and such, like Coach K mentioned. But consistency from the refs would enable teams to play the game, instead of stopping and starting constantly due to ticky tack fouls. Or letting players get constantly mugged and preventing them from being able to make effective post moves like in the old school days...

I agree - if the refs would just call a bunch more fouls, consistently, the games would get back to flowy. And, yes, it'll take a season or two of really ugly ball. We managed about 6 weeks of ugly ball the last time they tried before it reverted to smashmouth ball.

The question is how can we get the refs and their conference coordinators to play along? It's a 5 month season, hardly a full-time gig. The NCAA doesn't control the refs beyond advancing them in March, and the little conferences don't want to pay the money to pull this off.

Perhaps the "major" conferences, with their recent autonomy, could coordinate something useful for the regular season.

-jk

[JNort]

I'd vote for less stoppage in play to check replays and clock issues. Each coach should get 1 challenge per half (similar to football) you must use your own timeout to use a challenge and get it back if you challenge corrrect.

Can we also do away with clock operators? Perhaps the head official has a remote that starts and stops play, o and no more checking the time over a tenth of a second every possession.

Lower shot clock to 28 seconds. Pros run at 24 so college imo should get a bit longer but less than the women.

EXPAND THE 3 POINT LINE!!!!!! This would open up the paint and make a more free flowing game.

I probably can think of some more but I gotta go meet my little sister for dinner

[-jk]

I'd vote for less stoppage in play to check replays and clock issues. Each coach should get 1 challenge per half (similar to football) you must use your own timeout to use a challenge and get it back if you challenge corrrect.

Can we also do away with clock operators? Perhaps the head official has a remote that starts and stops play, o and no more checking the time over a tenth of a second every possession.

Lower shot clock to 28 seconds. Pros run at 24 so college imo should get a bit longer but less than the women.

EXPAND THE 3 POINT LINE!!!!!! This would open up the paint and make a more free flowing game.

I probably can think of some more but I gotta go meet my little sister for dinner

The ACC already has done away with shot clock operators for clock stops - the refs' whistles stop the clock. Not sure about starting the clock...

-jk

[davekay1971]

I'd vote for less stoppage in play to check replays and clock issues. Each coach should get 1 challenge per half (similar to football) you must use your own timeout to use a challenge and get it back if you challenge corrrect.

Can we also do away with clock operators? Perhaps the head official has a remote that starts and stops play, o and no more checking the time over a tenth of a second every possession.

Lower shot clock to 28 seconds. Pros run at 24 so college imo should get a bit longer but less than the women.

EXPAND THE 3 POINT LINE!!!!!! This would open up the paint and make a more free flowing game.

I probably can think of some more but I gotta go meet my little sister for dinner

I was watching the 30 for 30 on the '83 Wolfpack team and noticed something. There was no shot clock. And, outside of the ACC, there was no 3 point line. The ACC three point line was a ridiculously close range (closer than today's). And, you know what...other than the NCSU-Houston final, all of the games featured in the documentary had final scores with both teams in the 80s.

How is that possible?

3 obvious reasons:

1) The refs did call it tighter, so that holding, grabbing, etc, on defense wasn't a good strategy. If you wanted to stay in the game, you played clean defense. That changed when the Big East went to 6 fouls and the teams uglied it up in response. Then the Bad Boys and Riley's Knicks turned the NBA into a pro wrestling league, and that style trickled down to the NCAA. The refs gave up on calling tight games, and advantage went to the defense

2) The lack of a shot clock actually opened up the offense by encouraging ball movement for open shots. They had time to develop the offensive play, which led to more open shots (and kids could actually hit the mid range jumper back then), which led to higher shooting percentages and more points

3) The kids were more experienced playing together, which made for much better cuts and movement on offense, again leading to more open shots.

Pulling out the 3 point line might or might not open up the game. The outside shooters frequently spot up well outside of the line already, so pulling the line farther out might not move the 3 point shooters out much, while the guys who are currently marginal 3 point shooters might actually move in closer to the basket, giving up on a 3 they can't make to take a closer 2. Ultimately, if you want to open up the court, call the defense tighter, particularly attempts to impede free movement of the offensive players.

As for the shot clock, a shorter shot clock just puts more emphasis on quick set-ups for isolation plays. That's the NBA offense, and it isn't pretty. If you have more time to shoot, you can make the 4, 5, 6 pass half-court offensive sets and you'll get better offense and better shots.

Last point, but I always found LMU games boring. It was monotonous watching LMU rush up court, make one pass, fire up a quick shot, and then press. Back and forth, back and forth, with little ball movement, no development of the offense, and the first semi-open shot you can get. It was an interesting variation of the game, but it was always that, and nothing more. It was a novelty act.

The best basketball I remember, college or pro, was the ACC of the 80s and early 90s. Lots of talent, teams with experience, defense called tight enough to keep the games clean, and lots and lots of ball movement. The Big East was ugly as sin, but unfortunately very successful, and that style gradually replaced the ACC style, even in the ACC.

[mo.st.dukie]

There's different styles of play all over the country and there's plenty of high scoring games. Duke just had a 92-90 win a few weeks ago. Look at the scores tonight, there was a 56-45 game and an 80-77 game. Yesterday, Western Kentucky and Charlotte played an 88-84 game while Delaware State and Coppin State played a 104-92 game.

Of course on the whole scoring is down but IMO the #1 reason is that the talent level is down. It's not just the big schools that are hurt by early entry but everyone else to. Think about Duke this year if Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, and Rodney Hood were still on the team. Maybe that means Justise Winslow is playing somewhere else and maybe Matt and/or Grayson as well. There's a trickle-down effect and the talent spreads out a bit more. Even if we just had Jabari on this year's team with the guys we currently have, Duke would be averaging 90ppg.

The quality of the product is down because the talent level is down. It's simple. That results in lower scoring games and less entertainment value. Could you imagine Kentucky with Teague, James Young, MKG, Anthony Davis and Julius Randle going up against a Duke team with T Jones, Rivers, Hood, Parker, and Okafor this year? That game would be wildly entertaining, the reffing wouldn't matter because those teams would be so talented and experienced that they could do everything needed with fewer fouls and a much faster tempo. The shot clock wouldn't matter either, you could put up a 60 second shot clock up there but that game would still be high scoring and entertaining. Plus, it would be easier for the casual fan to get into not just because of the talent level but because they would actually know who these guys were having seen them play in college for so many years.

All the rule changes that have been proposed could help or perhaps nothing would really change or at least may never get back to "the good old days" because of the talent drain.

[Seattle Hoo]

In the old days, guys stayed in school longer (resulting in better chemistry/continuity and better players on the floor) and they tended to go more often to the top schools. So the top 25-30 schools were typically stockpiling most/all of the best talent. So games played by the best teams were usually very high-quality affairs, as they involved better, more experienced, more cohesive teams than today's games do.

I have a different perspective and think that some study of recruiting rankings and clustering would be wise on this subject, because it is my contention that the early entry wave has in fact resulted in fewer top recruits going anywhere but "the top schools." It used to be that a stud player knew the guys would stay four years (three at least), so if UNC signed a top 10 player at point guard one year, the top 10 point guards the next year would write UNC off their list because they knew that guy was going to be there for their first three years, so if they wanted to actually play, they had to go somewhere else. So a Wake Forest or UVA looked good. UVA got a lot of recruits in the past who would have preferred to go to UNC for that very reason.

Fast forward to today, and that top point guard can pretty much assume the guy who just signed will be gone next year or at least the year after, so why not sign with his dream school? So year after year, the UK, KU, UNC and Dukes of the world can just vacuum up all the top 15 players.

I further contend that this dynamic is why the ACC is not nearly as deep as it used to be. Think back to the 80s and early 90s, and almost every team in the league was good. The Virginia team that made the Final Four was 6-8 in the conference. I remember during the Sampson years, especially the last year or two, it seems like every single team in the league was good. UNC and UVA were elite. Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest and even Clemson all had very good teams. Georgia Tech and Duke were just about to skyrocket, as Mark Price at Georgia Tech, and the Dawkins-Alarie class were freshmen in 1982-83.

I'm sure the data is out there to compare the distribution of top 25 players over the decades and see how the spread of 2000-2015 compares to 1980-95. It would just take a lot of work to gather it and then make meaningful comparisons. But what I do know is that whenever I pop a disc from the early 80s in the player, I'm shocked by how different the game looks.

[Henderson]

I may be in the minority, but I don't mind low-scoring games that result from good defense. The games aren't flashy, but they aren't boring to me. I like watching a good defense, and I like watching successful deliberate half-court offense. It doesn't always make for good TV, but I hope that's not the name of the game. As exciting as a high scoring game can be, enjoying and appreciating a 1-0 baseball game requires some appreciation of subtlety. I like 'em both.

We could make the game more exciting by putting the players on roller skates (or donkeys -- whatever happened to that?).

[rsvman]

I, too, don't think that entertainment value is derived from scoring alone; I have seen games that ended with scores in the 50s that I found very entertaining.

I am also firmly against decreasing the shot clock; if I had my druthers, I'd rather change it up to 45 seconds than down to 30. I don't think the shot clock is the problem.

[NM Duke Fan]

I may be in the minority, but I don't mind low-scoring games that result from good defense. The games aren't flashy, but they aren't boring to me. I like watching a good defense, and I like watching successful deliberate half-court offense. It doesn't always make for good TV, but I hope that's not the name of the game. As exciting as a high scoring game can be, enjoying and appreciating a 1-0 baseball game requires some appreciation of subtlety. I like 'em both.

We could make the game more exciting by putting the players on roller skates (or donkeys -- whatever happened to that?).

The operative two words here are GOOD DEFENSE. I was always more of a defensive ace, and what I see in college BB is rarely in that category. It is pushing, holding, shoving, moving screens, etc. etc. All of which impedes the FLOW of the game and make it miserable to watch, more like a roller derby scrum.

I too appreciate great defense, like Duke has often played in the past, and has approached a few times this year as well. Great defense is exciting. Borderline or illegal defense is taking away from the dance that basketball can be at its best. Indeed like the early 90's in the ACC as has been mentioned ...

[Seattle Hoo]

The problem is that all of us are true fans. We love the game. So we know it, we understand it, we appreciate it. But TV does not care about us, because we will watch regardless. If TV wants to increase ratings, increase ad rates, increase revenue, increase profits, and impress Wall Street, TV needs that guy sitting in his recliner with the clicker in his right hand giving himself carpal tunnel syndrome with the channel up (or down if he is a pessimist) button to pause his finger over the button with the channel on ESPN, then slowly put the clicker down on the arm of the chair and leave it there for a while. And that guy, in America, is probably far more impressed by guys running up and down the court and a scoreboard that ratchets up like one of his video game scores than he is by the chess game of hard hedges and pick-and-pops, countered by a switch, countered by..... There is a reason the debate about college basketball sounds an awful lot like the debates in the NFL lately. It's all about the casual fan. When the talking heads say that "Virginia is bad for college basketball," what they really mean is, "We fear Virginia's long-term success could be bad for our advertising revenue."

[Henderson]

When the talking heads say that "Virginia is bad for college basketball," what they really mean is, "We fear Virginia's long-term success could be bad for our advertising revenue."

Has a broadcast network talking head ever said, "Virginia is bad for college basketball?" I haven't heard that, but you could provide a link. I've certainly never heard a network official say that UVa's style of basketball is bad for ratings, let alone that it therefore must be condemned. You are much more likely to hear the talking heads say something like, "It's X's slow down style against Y's uptempo game," and I think they mean it. It's a compelling narrative.

Instead, it's bloggers who fret, and they usually do it in the form of a question. "Is Virginia bad for college basketball?" to generate buzz for themselves. The substance is irrelevant to them, as long as it creates buzz. Some bloggers provide useful commentary; most are like the guy sleeping on your couch who pecks away drunkenly at the computer late at night in his underwear trying desperately to not go back to the swing shift at Wal-Mart so he can say to girls in a club, "I'm a journalist."

My point: No one who knows basketball thinks UVa's style is bad for college basketball, and that includes the network heads. I don't care much about what the soi-disant analysts have to say on their blogs, and (frankly, sadly) neither do they.

[Seattle Hoo]

The blogger in question writes on ESPN.COM. If you are aware that ESPN is owned by Disney, you are likely aware that Disney is psychopathically cross-promoting. While he was the only one who has said "Virginia is bad for basketball", a variety of ESPN's commentators have been making the argument that the reduction in scoring and the slow pace is bad for college basketball. Virginia is named in virtually every one of these arguments. Those who have seen Virginia play will generally say that Virginia is not the problem per se, because we just play very good defense and offense, but, they still use it as an example of the phenomenon. A lot of fans of other teams come right out and say "Virginia is boring," and of course, most of them probably have never watched Virginia play.

What the networks care about is ratings.

[Henderson]

The blogger in question writes on ESPN.COM.

So we agree that you're stressed about a blogger. Got it.


If you are aware that ESPN is owned by Disney, you are likely aware that Disney is psychopathically cross-promoting. While he was the only one who has said "Virginia is bad for basketball", a variety of ESPN's commentators have been making the argument that the reduction in scoring and the slow pace is bad for college basketball. Virginia is named in virtually every one of these arguments.

Linky? Sounds like there are several you have in mind. Let's have 'em.


What the networks care about is ratings.

No question. But have any network bigwigs said UVa is bad for basketball ratings? Or that deliberate offense and defense are bad for basketball ratings?

So far what you've got is an unnamed, uncited blogger who supposedly thinks UVa is bad for basketball. That's hardly a rationale for saying the networks think UVa is bad for basketball or is bad for ratings.

Maybe there's more? Or have you just been trolled by a blogger who dines on that stuff?

[Seattle Hoo]

Look, Henderson, you are seizing on an example that I threw out there to illustrate a completely different point. My point was not about Virginia or any treatment of media. My point was that we appreciate defense because we appreciate the game. The networks don't care about that. The issue is the same in college basketball as it is in the NFL. There are those who equate scoring with excitement. Those who do not appreciate a game are more interested in scoring than strategy. They also happen to be the ones who drive ratings. The networks are chasing the casual fans, and they want the leagues to make the rules to attract the casual fans. That's why ratings-driven rules changes are always to favor the offense. It's not about Virginia.

[Henderson]

Look, Henderson, you are seizing on an example that I threw out there to illustrate a completely different point. My point was not about Virginia or any treatment of media. My point was that we appreciate defense because we appreciate the game. The networks don't care about that. The issue is the same in college basketball as it is in the NFL. There are those who equate scoring with excitement. Those who do not appreciate a game are more interested in scoring than strategy. They also happen to be the ones who drive ratings. The networks are chasing the casual fans, and they want the leagues to make the rules to attract the casual fans. That's why ratings-driven rules changes are always to favor the offense. It's not about Virginia.

My apologies for not appreciating your central point. I understand it better now. And we can agree to appreciate the beauty of deliberate play.

But I still disagree that networks have any concern about the style of game played by some teams. I don't know of any ratings study that correlates pace of play with viewership, but I'll admit I haven't studied it. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the networks care about ratings (and therefore sponsorship $) to the near exclusion of other interests. And I agree with your implicit assumption that if deliberate play meant less money for the networks, they'd be squirming about that style. But I respectully disagree that there is any current connection between the two, despite what some "journalists" might put forth.

[Acymetric]

There's different styles of play all over the country and there's plenty of high scoring games. Duke just had a 92-90 win a few weeks ago. Look at the scores tonight, there was a 56-45 game and an 80-77 game. Yesterday, Western Kentucky and Charlotte played an 88-84 game while Delaware State and Coppin State played a 104-92 game.

Of course on the whole scoring is down but IMO the #1 reason is that the talent level is down. It's not just the big schools that are hurt by early entry but everyone else to. Think about Duke this year if Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, and Rodney Hood were still on the team. Maybe that means Justise Winslow is playing somewhere else and maybe Matt and/or Grayson as well. There's a trickle-down effect and the talent spreads out a bit more. Even if we just had Jabari on this year's team with the guys we currently have, Duke would be averaging 90ppg.

The quality of the product is down because the talent level is down. It's simple. That results in lower scoring games and less entertainment value. Could you imagine Kentucky with Teague, James Young, MKG, Anthony Davis and Julius Randle going up against a Duke team with T Jones, Rivers, Hood, Parker, and Okafor this year? That game would be wildly entertaining, the reffing wouldn't matter because those teams would be so talented and experienced that they could do everything needed with fewer fouls and a much faster tempo. The shot clock wouldn't matter either, you could put up a 60 second shot clock up there but that game would still be high scoring and entertaining. Plus, it would be easier for the casual fan to get into not just because of the talent level but because they would actually know who these guys were having seen them play in college for so many years.

All the rule changes that have been proposed could help or perhaps nothing would really change or at least may never get back to "the good old days" because of the talent drain.

In your hypothetical (and very appealing) scenario, Irving and Jones would likely be the starters with Rivers coming off the bench (or possibly with Irving returning Rivers would have looked elsewhere).

That pair and their play making ability would be scary. Might almost be too good to work in practice even as multi-year teammates and not as a cobbled together all star team. Imagine that...senior Irving helping mentor a young phenom in Tyus Jones, with a determined, confident and more mature Rivers coming off the bench.

[davekay1971]

wh
In your hypothetical (and very appealing) scenario, Irving and Jones would likely be the starters with Rivers coming off the bench (or possibly with Irving returning Rivers would have looked elsewhere).

That pair and their play making ability would be scary. Might almost be too good to work in practice even as multi-year teammates and not as a cobbled together all star team. Imagine that...senior Irving helping mentor a young phenom in Tyus Jones, with a determined, confident and more mature Rivers coming off the bench.

Those are fun what-ifs, but in reality you probably wouldn't see that stockpiling of talent on one team. The only reason KY can boast so many NBA first rounders over the last few years is because of the one-and-done rule. If you want to go the NBA after a year, KY is a great option because they turn over great talent so quickly. Another unintended consequence of one-and-done - all the top talent tends to cluster more at programs likely to showcase them into March and April. If kids still stayed for four years, with a few kids leaving after 2 or 3 based on a hardship rule, the talent would spread out. In the ACC of the early 1980s, you saw that.

But then, that also would make the college game better, as you'd get back to leagues rich in talent from top to bottom, rather than a few top powers and a big drop off after that. The ACC may be twice as big now, but I'd take all 8 teams of the ACC in the 1980s over the top 8 teams of the ACC now.

Alas for days gone by and all that. I'll go back to gumming my grits, rocking in my chair, and screaming at those darned kids to GET OFF MY LAWN!

[Acymetric]

wh

Those are fun what-ifs, but in reality you probably wouldn't see that stockpiling of talent on one team. The only reason KY can boast so many NBA first rounders over the last few years is because of the one-and-done rule. If you want to go the NBA after a year, KY is a great option because they turn over great talent so quickly. Another unintended consequence of one-and-done - all the top talent tends to cluster more at programs likely to showcase them into March and April. If kids still stayed for four years, with a few kids leaving after 2 or 3 based on a hardship rule, the talent would spread out. In the ACC of the early 1980s, you saw that.

But then, that also would make the college game better, as you'd get back to leagues rich in talent from top to bottom, rather than a few top powers and a big drop off after that. The ACC may be twice as big now, but I'd take all 8 teams of the ACC in the 1980s over the top 8 teams of the ACC now.

Alas for days gone by and all that. I'll go back to gumming my grits, rocking in my chair, and screaming at those darned kids to GET OFF MY LAWN!

Well, I did acknowledge that Rivers may have opted to go elsewhere if Irving was in the fold. I figured in this fantasy world of 4 year stars I would allow for players who play different positions to stack up (good luck having fun with this hypothetical if you redistribute all recruits to different schools starting at some arbitrary year).

Actually, that might be a fun summer project when the real basketball talk has died down...:cool: