PDA

View Full Version : SI Article about ways to improve CBB offense



MarkD83
03-10-2015, 09:10 PM
Seth Davis has written an article in SI (link below and in the print version) about the decrease in CBB scoring and ways to increase scoring.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/26/hoop-thoughts-college-basketball-scoring-pace

There are comments by Jay Bilas, Coach K and Tom Izzo which are very reasonable (you'll have to read the article to see the context). However, specific rules changes that Seth mentions seem a bit old and may or may not help. These include (with my counters to the thoughts in the article in parentheses; I know I am disagreeing with the best minds in CBB):

1. Shorten the shot clock (A team that can't get a shot off against UVA in 35 seconds will score even less if they only have 24 seconds)
2. Move the arc under the basket where a charge is not called further out (If refs don't call this correctly now moving the arc won't help)
3. Widen the lane (Jah starts backing his man down 15 feet from the basket so unless the lane is 30 feet wide you won't stop him from doing this.)
4. Move the 3-pt line back (This will force even more drives to the basket and more clogging of the lane)
5. Fewer time outs (This one I agree with...if a team is in trouble don't let the coach bail them out from the side-line)

So instead of these I had some more radical thoughts.

1. No 5 second closely guarded call. If you want players to drive and score more don't reward the defense at all.
2. Don't allow anyone in the lane for more than 3 seconds. If you want a clear path to the basket don't allow anyone near the basket.
3. Don't allow double teams or traps. If you can't guard your man one on one too bad.
4. You can not defend anyone in the back court. That allows teams to set their offense so they have a better chance of scoring.
5. Add a second line 10 feet from the basket. This would be the 3 point line. The current 3 point shot would be worth 4 points.

I guess my "somewhat silly" list of rules boils down to this. As a fan I like to watch close games and see coaches adapt styles so that teams with less talent can beat teams with superior talent. I also like to watch defense. Allowing Wake to only score 15 points at half was a fun game to watch as a Duke fan.

So, just a pulse check do you like to watch a good Defensive game or a good Offensive game?

rsvman
03-10-2015, 09:19 PM
I don't understand why the game is no good just because sometimes scores are lower. I enjoy both defense and offense, and don't see why offense should be so much more important to people.

I think the rules are OK just as they are.

fuse
03-10-2015, 09:32 PM
Wider lane and 24 second shot clock would make the game more interesting.

When we were collectively lambasting Duke's defense mid season, it seemed like we played decent defense for about 20-25 seconds, it was generally the last ten seconds where we broke down (I am sure this is more anecdotal than scientific).

The best improvement to basketball would be to allow lacrosse style on the fly substitutions. The thought of the resulting chaos makes me smile.

MarkD83
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
Wider lane and 24 second shot clock would make the game more interesting.

When we were collectively lambasting Duke's defense mid season, it seemed like we played decent defense for about 20-25 seconds, it was generally the last ten seconds where we broke down (I am sure this is more anecdotal than scientific).

The best improvement to basketball would be to allow lacrosse style on the fly substitutions. The thought of the resulting chaos makes me smile.

OK, the lacrosse comment got me thinkin. In lacrosse and ice hockey no one complains about these games NOT being exciting and the scores in these games are much lower than in basketball. In the article by Seth, Shaka Smart commented that basketball should be free flowing. Lacrosse and ice hockey are free flowing because there is plenty of space for all of the players. So... in bball players are getting bigger and more athletic. Maybe to make things more free-flowing the game should be 4 on 4. More space per player.

The roster sizes would not change because players would get tired more quickly.

TruBlu
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
1) Enforce existing rules regarding fouling near the basket. Touch fouls are being called on the perimeter, but physical assault is being permitted on the inside. It wouldn't take but a few games for teams/coaches to realize that the refs are calling it, the bruising contact will go down, and the game will have a better offensive flow.

2) I don't have a # 2.

killerleft
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
Wider lane and 24 second shot clock would make the game more interesting.

When we were collectively lambasting Duke's defense mid season, it seemed like we played decent defense for about 20-25 seconds, it was generally the last ten seconds where we broke down (I am sure this is more anecdotal than scientific).

The best improvement to basketball would be to allow lacrosse style on the fly substitutions. The thought of the resulting chaos makes me smile.

I already don't watch pro ball, you trying to take away my college game, too?:)

CDu
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
I don't understand why the game is no good just because sometimes scores are lower. I enjoy both defense and offense, and don't see why offense should be so much more important to people.

I think the rules are OK just as they are.

You apparently don't watch much Big-10 bball. I agree that the score doesn't dictate entertainment, but seeing teams chuck up wild shot after wild shot and seeing teams foul each other endlessly without calls makes for an awful product.

I still think the biggest improvements to the quality of play would be to actually enforce the rules already in place.

fuse
03-10-2015, 09:46 PM
The real key to any change would be measurement, and not changing too much at once.

Experimental pre-season rules serve this purpose to a limited degree.

MrPoon
03-10-2015, 10:04 PM
i don't understand the debate. The amount of contact permited now is nuts. A shorter shot clock, more spacing and fewer stoppages reward more skilled, better executing, more athletic teams. Let me say that differently, they reward what we all watch the game for. The test shouldn't be will this help you watch a Duke KU game it should be, can we improve the game so that you watch a game without out big programs that you care about. That improves revenue. That is what the NBA and Euro leagues are trying to figure out. NCAA not so much.

The argument against the refs is one I don't buy, they call the rules. Tell them to stop hand checking, they will or they won't get the next game. Tell them to to stop blasting players posting up and they will.

More touches for more skilled players will result in more points. It may also result in more blowouts, but so be it, coaches need to get better. Why reward the lowest common denominator? That is what the current rules do. Imagine Jah with the rules called as intended. He'd have enough pracitice at the stripe to shoot 90% by the end of the season!

Please someone rescue the game we love!

The last three minutes of the game is the worst in sports, fix it.

Neals384
03-10-2015, 10:09 PM
I already don't watch pro ball, you trying to take away my college game, too?:)

This.

Tom B.
03-10-2015, 10:12 PM
They could just require every game to be BYU vs. Gonzaga. They've combined for 90 points (48-42) in the first half.

JetpackJesus
03-10-2015, 11:03 PM
Seth Davis has written an article in SI (link below and in the print version) about the decrease in CBB scoring and ways to increase scoring.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/26/hoop-thoughts-college-basketball-scoring-pace

There are comments by Jay Bilas, Coach K and Tom Izzo which are very reasonable (you'll have to read the article to see the context). However, specific rules changes that Seth mentions seem a bit old and may or may not help. These include (with my counters to the thoughts in the article in parentheses; I know I am disagreeing with the best minds in CBB):

1. Shorten the shot clock (A team that can't get a shot off against UVA in 35 seconds will score even less if they only have 24 seconds)
2. Move the arc under the basket where a charge is not called further out (If refs don't call this correctly now moving the arc won't help)
3. Widen the lane (Jah starts backing his man down 15 feet from the basket so unless the lane is 30 feet wide you won't stop him from doing this.)
4. Move the 3-pt line back (This will force even more drives to the basket and more clogging of the lane)
5. Fewer time outs (This one I agree with...if a team is in trouble don't let the coach bail them out from the side-line)

So, just a pulse check do you like to watch a good Defensive game or a good Offensive game?

Preferably I'll be watching a game where Duke has both types of games.

Some have said that actually calling fouls, especially in the paint, would be a good start to improve offense. I totally agree. Maybe refs could get it right if they were told to focus on it like with the hand checking directive. I'm not sure that's the case, though, so my radical rule proposal is the addition of 2 officials to the sideline (one on each end of the court) between the foul line extended and baseline opposite the team benches. They would not move from this assigned area, but I would probably want them to switch ends of the court at each media timeout. These two refs would be responsible solely for calling fouls in the paint, including block/charges, which they will receive extensive training on so they actually understand the rule and call it appropriately.

In the real world: I'm definitely down with a shorter shot clock and fewer time outs. The other rules I'd like to see on a trial basis before making a decision. I tend to think a wider lane is a good idea, but I'm undecided on the restricted zone under the basket and the 3-point line changes.

Troublemaker
03-10-2015, 11:07 PM
Does anyone know where to find Offensive Efficiency for the entire sport for this and previous seasons? That is, there have been X points scored in college basketball this season and Y possessions played. I want X divided by Y for this and previous seasons.

Since I don't have that, I used KenPom to make a table showing Median Offensive Efficiency going back to 2002 and Median Tempo for those seasons as well. Assuming a normal distribution, I would think that is a good approximation of the National Offensive Efficiency (i.e. the X / Y from above).



Year
Median Offensive Efficiency
Median Tempo


2002
100.5
69.8


2003
101.2
68.5


2004
100.7
67.7


2005
101.3
67.2


2006
101.5
66.8


2007
101.9
66.7


2008
101.8
66.6


2009
100.9
66.3


2010
101.0
67.2


2011
101.2
66.5


2012
100.6
66.0


2013
100.6
65.9


2014
104.1
66.3


2015
101.6
64.7



As you can see, Offensive Efficiency hasn't been THAT bad this year. 2015's OE of 101.6 ranks 4th in the past 14 years.

It's just that this is BY FAR the slowest season we've played over that time period.

burnspbesq
03-10-2015, 11:39 PM
How about a water polo restart after every basket? Put the ball on the floor in the center circle, put the teams on opposite baselines, and designate one player on each team to go get the ball on the whistle. That oughta be fun.

Yes, I am trolling the change-the-rules crew.

BobbyFan
03-11-2015, 12:03 AM
Differences in pace accounts for the lower scoring games in today's environment, as Davis points out in the article. Although he cites a slight drop in the last year, offensive efficiency hasn't drastically changed over the past few decades. An attributing factor to higher pace (and lost in the excitement of more frenetic games) in previous eras is that transition defense was at times comical. Coaching has since placed much more emphasis on preventing those vulnerable situations for their defense.

The net impact of shortening the shot clock by 5 seconds is questionable. Pace would increase, but with the cost of giving a greater edge to defenses on a per possession basis. There could potentially be more end of game excitement due to limitations on strategies such as ours that rely on milking the shot clock.


Don't allow anyone in the lane for more than 3 seconds. If you want a clear path to the basket don't allow anyone near the basket

I agree that adopting the NBA's 3 second violation for off ball defenders would clearly accomplish much of what is being desired. Aside from opening up the lane, it indirectly curtails the ability of defenders to draw charges. The current approach towards the charge/block call has justifiably been debated, as it gives secondary defenders an excessive advantage that isn't in line with the intent of the game. However, given that we don't hear much about the 3 second rule from the powers that be, it wouldn't be surprising if there would be too much opposition from coaches that utilize zones.


Second, just 42 underclassmen entered the 2014 NBA draft. Nine were freshmen. That is not nearly enough to account for a decline measured across some 8,000 games played by nearly 4,500 Division I athletes.

This argument from Davis is misleading. Tallying early entrants from only a single year doesn't account for all potential player-seasons lost in the upcoming year. Second, his underlying point is as it relates to the casual fan, who will predominantly watch the best teams whose players in turn make up a small fraction of the 4,500 athletes he mentions. Finally, he doesn't address the negative impact that early departures have in year to year continuity and stability, and ability to appropriately target recruits.

hudlow
03-11-2015, 12:04 AM
I've long thought that the abilities of the players are far outpacing the abilities of the officials.

I can't see how our current officials could reasonably call a faster paced game.

hud

Troublemaker
03-11-2015, 12:32 AM
I agree that adopting the NBA's 3 second violation for off ball defenders would clearly accomplish much of what is being desired. Aside from opening up the lane, it indirectly curtails the ability of defenders to draw charges. The current approach towards the charge/block call has justifiably been debated, as it gives secondary defenders an excessive advantage that isn't in line with the intent of the game. However, given that we don't hear much about the 3 second rule from the powers that be, it wouldn't be surprising if there would be too much opposition from coaches that utilize zones.

I agree that implementing defensive 3 seconds would pretty much take care of the problem.

Coaches basically spent all offseason trying to figure out how to guard penetration (and how to foul less while doing so) after witnessing the foul-fest 2014 season when the NCAA implemented freedom-of-movement rules on the perimeter. The coaches' solution to this problem? Play more zone and pack in man-2-man defenses in order to stop the drives. This, in turn, forced offensive possessions to last longer because it takes time to move the ball from side to side, seeking gaps in the zones and packed-in man. This means fewer possessions and thus lower scoring. Helloooooooo, unintended consequences from the freedom-of-movement emphasis on the perimeter.

Des Esseintes
03-11-2015, 12:33 AM
I've long thought that the abilities of the players are far outpacing the abilities of the officials.

I can't see how our current officials could reasonably call a faster paced game.

hud

Except that the NBA has a 24 second clock, the NBA is populated entirely by cyborg-gazelles, and the NBA is capably officiated. Indeed, the NBA game has perhaps never looked better. So it can be done.

I thought Davis's point about the makeup of the rules committee was very apt. Mid-major and low-major coaches dominate the committee, and they are legislating a style of play that benefits muddying up the game and penalizes skill/athleticism/elan. That's CRAZY. Further, I don't understand the people who are resistant to change. The ship has already sailed there. Changing the rules is about getting back to a prettier style of basketball, one that once presided and has been ruined by wrestling contests. We don't have to live with these unendurable slogs. I love to watch Duke basketball. I hate to watch the rest of college basketball. College basketball needn't be built to please me, of course, but the sport risks losing all but the hardcore.

uh_no
03-11-2015, 12:51 AM
Except that the NBA has a 24 second clock, the NBA is populated entirely by cyborg-gazelles, and the NBA is capably officiated. Indeed, the NBA game has perhaps never looked better. So it can be done.

I thought Davis's point about the makeup of the rules committee was very apt. Mid-major and low-major coaches dominate the committee, and they are legislating a style of play that benefits muddying up the game and penalizes skill/athleticism/elan. That's CRAZY. Further, I don't understand the people who are resistant to change. The ship has already sailed there. Changing the rules is about getting back to a prettier style of basketball, one that once presided and has been ruined by wrestling contests. We don't have to live with these unendurable slogs. I love to watch Duke basketball. I hate to watch the rest of college basketball. College basketball needn't be built to please me, of course, but the sport risks losing all but the hardcore.

basketball heavens forbid that teams have to learn to play as teams rather than relying on athleticism all the time

#1 reason I watch college over NBA
#1 reason I watch women's college ball

BigWayne
03-11-2015, 01:20 AM
I still think the biggest improvements to the quality of play would be to actually enforce the rules already in place.

Yes, yes, and yes! Good advice for college hoops on and off the court and a lot of other situations, too.

Des Esseintes
03-11-2015, 01:56 AM
basketball heavens forbid that teams have to learn to play as teams rather than relying on athleticism all the time

#1 reason I watch college over NBA
#1 reason I watch women's college ball

This is ignorant. The NBA plays fantastic team ball. As I mentioned in the previous post, one could make the argument that the NBA plays better team ball today than at any point in its history. The rules changes and officiating emphases established a decade ago have put a beautiful premium on ball movement and spacing. NBA offenses are far more sophisticated than anything happening in either men's or women's college hoops, and the best offenses involve all five players with screens, cuts, and misdirection. Never mind that star ball ABSOLUTELY happens in college ball all the time. How many times have we heard K state over the years that "The guys were a little guilty of standing around watching [standout Duke player that season]"?

The Spurs played better team ball winning their title last season than, ahem, the Shabazz Napier Huskies did. This year, the Golden State Warriors are an incredibly communal unit, as are the Atlanta Hawks. As are, again, the Spurs. Memphis plays defense with terrific potency, an ability honed from years of continuity as a unit. Even a star-heavy squad such as Cleveland only took off when they made two trades to balance their team and make it functional at every position.

But, by all means, keep hauling out bromides fifteen years past their sell-by date. Uninformed criticism of the NBA is *totally* the way to deal with problems in the college game. Hurray for 50-46 games becoming the new norm!

MarkD83
03-11-2015, 07:30 AM
This is ignorant. The NBA plays fantastic team ball. As I mentioned in the previous post, one could make the argument that the NBA plays better team ball today than at any point in its history. The rules changes and officiating emphases established a decade ago have put a beautiful premium on ball movement and spacing. NBA offenses are far more sophisticated than anything happening in either men's or women's college hoops, and the best offenses involve all five players with screens, cuts, and misdirection. Never mind that star ball ABSOLUTELY happens in college ball all the time. How many times have we heard K state over the years that "The guys were a little guilty of standing around watching [standout Duke player that season]"?

The Spurs played better team ball winning their title last season than, ahem, the Shabazz Napier Huskies did. This year, the Golden State Warriors are an incredibly communal unit, as are the Atlanta Hawks. As are, again, the Spurs. Memphis plays defense with terrific potency, an ability honed from years of continuity as a unit. Even a star-heavy squad such as Cleveland only took off when they made two trades to balance their team and make it functional at every position.

But, by all means, keep hauling out bromides fifteen years past their sell-by date. Uninformed criticism of the NBA is *totally* the way to deal with problems in the college game. Hurray for 50-46 games becoming the new norm!

Perhaps the reason the NBA plays great team ball is continuity. This year it took 1/2 the season for the Cavs to start playing well, because it took that long for them to get used to playing as a team. I highlighted the key phrase that struck me. With the advent of OAD players or better yet players that do not stay for 4 years at one program (this includes transfers) perhaps college teams have lost the ability to gel as a team. This often causes team to rely on their best player on offense and not have any team offense. Perhaps allowing unlimited practice time from May to Sept. would help. The players would still leave early or transfer but a coach gets more time to build a team than just Oct and Nov. My thought is this is why UVA has been good for the past few years. They have lost some players to transfers but a core group has been there for 2-3 years. I dare say if you look at Ky you will also see that their NC team a few years ago and the team this year does have more than just freshman and there is some continuity.

Matches
03-11-2015, 08:27 AM
This is ignorant. The NBA plays fantastic team ball. As I mentioned in the previous post, one could make the argument that the NBA plays better team ball today than at any point in its history. The rules changes and officiating emphases established a decade ago have put a beautiful premium on ball movement and spacing. NBA offenses are far more sophisticated than anything happening in either men's or women's college hoops, and the best offenses involve all five players with screens, cuts, and misdirection. Never mind that star ball ABSOLUTELY happens in college ball all the time. How many times have we heard K state over the years that "The guys were a little guilty of standing around watching [standout Duke player that season]"?

The Spurs played better team ball winning their title last season than, ahem, the Shabazz Napier Huskies did. This year, the Golden State Warriors are an incredibly communal unit, as are the Atlanta Hawks. As are, again, the Spurs. Memphis plays defense with terrific potency, an ability honed from years of continuity as a unit. Even a star-heavy squad such as Cleveland only took off when they made two trades to balance their team and make it functional at every position.

But, by all means, keep hauling out bromides fifteen years past their sell-by date. Uninformed criticism of the NBA is *totally* the way to deal with problems in the college game. Hurray for 50-46 games becoming the new norm!

To add a little to this, there was a time when those criticisms of the NBA were pretty accurate. The reason they're no longer accurate is that the NBA realized it had a dreary, often unwatchable product and changed the rules to make the game better. Not that every NBA game now is a work of art, but most of the games are at least watchable, even if you don't have a particular rooting interest.

College bball is reaching the point for me where it's not watchable unless it's a Duke game or I otherwise have some sort of rooting interest. The problem isn't just lower scoring - it's inept play, it's too many stops and starts to the action, it's games that don't have any flow to them at all. UVA isn't the problem - they're actually pretty fun to watch - but way too many games are just a complete slog now, and it makes sense to tweak the rules and open things up a bit.

elvis14
03-11-2015, 08:39 AM
You can count me as another person that thinks that we don't need more rules, we simply need to enforce the ones we have. All you have to do is watch what's going on with Jahlil off the ball. He's getting hammered in the paint. That's just one example, the way the game is called now is that you can't touch a guy with the ball on the perimeter but you can have a ton of contact off the ball and in the lane. This hurts a team like Duke that tries to pressure the ball with man to man defense because we pick up touch fouls. When we get killed with dribble penetration there's always talk on the board about adjusting our defense to the way the game is called.

What we need to do is cut down on the amount of contact allowed in in the paint, both on the ball and especially off the ball. Low post guys like Jahlil are getting pounded and held, guys making cuts through the lane and coming off picks are being bumped and held. This is where there's a problem with the flow of the game. Think about the game against the Cheaters the other day, on the play where Tyus hurt his back, he was hit in mid air and knocked down....no call. You're allowed to foul with the body but not your hands so guys are getting bumped all the time. They have also stopped calling most over the back violations.

The bad thing is that most years, it gets worse in the NCAA tournament...well worse than in ACC play. I can't speak to the B1G or Big East, as I don't watch enough of their games. As much as I love the tournament (especially when Duke is dong well) I'm not looking forward to some of the wrestling matches that'll be on display.

sagegrouse
03-11-2015, 09:38 AM
Does anyone know where to find Offensive Efficiency for the entire sport for this and previous seasons? That is, there have been X points scored in college basketball this season and Y possessions played. I want X divided by Y for this and previous seasons.

Since I don't have that, I used KenPom to make a table showing Median Offensive Efficiency going back to 2002 and Median Tempo for those seasons as well. Assuming a normal distribution, I would think that is a good approximation of the National Offensive Efficiency (i.e. the X / Y from above).


As you can see, Offensive Efficiency hasn't been THAT bad this year. 2015's OE of 101.6 ranks 4th in the past 14 years.

It's just that this is BY FAR the slowest season we've played over that time period.

Thanks for grabbing the data. I personally would be very comfortable working with median statistics, as you have done, instead of means (averages).

The linear regression slope is -0.25 per year. This suggests that somewhere around the year 2267, there will be only two possessions per game. Given the shot clock, the minimum is somewhat higher, around 34 possessions for each team if the shot clock is fully exhausted on each possession. (But maybe I don't understand the Tempo statistic.)

rsvman
03-11-2015, 09:42 AM
.... Changing the rules is about getting back to a prettier style of basketball, one that once presided ......
So this is a pretty interesting point. You're arguing for more rule changes so we can get BACK to a prettier style that prevailed back when........wait for it.........we had no rules changes. None. No 3-point line, no shot clock, no half-circle under the basket, no widened lane......nothing.

So we're obviously missing something here. The game was prettier before we instituted rules changes, so now we need more rules changes to make it get back to the way it was before we changed the rules?

Clearly something changed between "back in the day" and "now." The question is what, exactly, changed? I think if the shotclock is shortened there will be yet more unintended consequences; I think this might even make scoring go down even further than it is now. We'll have more possessions, but lowered offensive efficiency. To me, there's nothing "pretty" about a game that has a lot of meaningless possessions.

The problem with the current game is not that the shot clock is too long. It's that it's become football underneath the basket rather than basketball. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be solved, IMO.

uh_no
03-11-2015, 09:58 AM
This is ignorant. The NBA plays fantastic team ball.

Because I don't particularly enjoy the style of play in the NBA that makes me ignorant?

Glad we're so open to differences of opinion here.

I don't watch a ton of NBA, but I watch some. I'd much rather watch a several passes linked together leading to an open J or layup than someone breaking someone else's ankle in the lane and going in for a a floater or crazy layup or something. It's simply hard to play defense against the NBA guys BECAUSE they are so physically gifted. The NBA has rules that allow that to happen...wider lane, 3 seconds on defense, bigger charge circle, and I think it's dumb. If you want to play defense by clogging the lane, YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO! It's been stated that that allows more athletically gifted teams to shine because you can't clog the lane (are the people that said that ignorant too?). Are you arguing that the NBA doesn't put emphasis on leaving the lane open, it very obviously does, and this guy personally thinks it's stupid.

Let teams play defense in different ways
Call fouls how they are written in the rule books


If a team clogs the lane? find a different way to beat them. Make them pay with outside shooting and more effective passing. I want teams to have that option, and they currently don't in the NBA. If that makes me ignorant, then I don't want to see the light.

killerleft
03-11-2015, 10:25 AM
So this is a pretty interesting point. You're arguing for more rule changes so we can get BACK to a prettier style that prevailed back when........wait for it.........we had no rules changes. None. No 3-point line, no shot clock, no half-circle under the basket, no widened lane......nothing.

So we're obviously missing something here. The game was prettier before we instituted rules changes, so now we need more rules changes to make it get back to the way it was before we changed the rules?

Clearly something changed between "back in the day" and "now." The question is what, exactly, changed? I think if the shotclock is shortened there will be yet more unintended consequences; I think this might even make scoring go down even further than it is now. We'll have more possessions, but lowered offensive efficiency. To me, there's nothing "pretty" about a game that has a lot of meaningless possessions.

The problem with the current game is not that the shot clock is too long. It's that it's become football underneath the basket rather than basketball. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be solved, IMO.

Agree 100%. Cut out the brawling, and call it tighter on both the defense AND offense (sorry, Jah). I think the shot clock is at a very good place at 35 seconds. Shortening the shot clock is NOT going to make offenses any better, just more helter-skelter. College teams need more time to develop each possession, and the longer clock still gives a team some control over the number of possessions each game. The object of basketball has never been a race to score a bunch of points, just more points than the opponent. Leave the coaches their adjustments and let's keep a little bit of strategy in the game. There are plenty of video games (and the NBA) out there for people who need wall-to-wall frantic skirmishes.

Jarhead
03-11-2015, 10:54 AM
Last night I read the Seth Davis article, and although I am not a big fan of of Seth I found mostly nothing with which to disagree. After glancing through the article this morning I didn't change my mind. I do not enjoy NBA ball except in the later stages of the playoffs, but they are the people with the most talent. There is also a lot talent in FIBA with a much more watchable game. The college game is my favorite, and I don't know why, except, maybe, for the calling of fouls. Why should the big guy with the ball in the paint have the right to bump into a stationary defender, several times, before taking his shot? Why is it that the guy who initiates contact escapes a foul call? Those things happen in all levels of organized hoops. As for changes in the rules, I would like it if the FIBA rules be the standard for everybody from high school to the Olympics. ...uuhh, except for goaltending, and .... uuhh, never mind.

Des Esseintes
03-11-2015, 11:03 AM
Because I don't particularly enjoy the style of play in the NBA that makes me ignorant?

Glad we're so open to differences of opinion here.

I don't watch a ton of NBA, but I watch some. I'd much rather watch a several passes linked together leading to an open J or layup than someone breaking someone else's ankle in the lane and going in for a a floater or crazy layup or something. It's simply hard to play defense against the NBA guys BECAUSE they are so physically gifted. The NBA has rules that allow that to happen...wider lane, 3 seconds on defense, bigger charge circle, and I think it's dumb. If you want to play defense by clogging the lane, YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO! It's been stated that that allows more athletically gifted teams to shine because you can't clog the lane (are the people that said that ignorant too?). Are you arguing that the NBA doesn't put emphasis on leaving the lane open, it very obviously does, and this guy personally thinks it's stupid.

Let teams play defense in different ways
Call fouls how they are written in the rule books


If a team clogs the lane? find a different way to beat them. Make them pay with outside shooting and more effective passing. I want teams to have that option, and they currently don't in the NBA. If that makes me ignorant, then I don't want to see the light.
You said the NBA doesn't play a team game compared to college ball, and I said that position was ignorant. Which it is. Both that post and this one are full of inaccuracies. You'd rather watch several passes linked together? That's WHY the NBA implemented its changes: to facilitate a game that relied more on passing and skill. You seem not to understand the changes the NBA made. The major innovations were eliminating hand checks on the perimeter (which benefits offense, obviously) BUT ALSO allowing zone defense. The second change is often overlooked. On its surface, it seems like a defense-positive change. And it is--against an isolation-heavy offense. The old 90s strategy of pulling all but your star to one side of the court so he could try to bust his man suddenly became a way less efficient strategy. By allowing zone, the NBA encouraged offenses to work harder and prioritize smart ball movement. Something you claim you are in favor of. It also allowed multiple kinds of D to be played, something you *also* claim to be in favor of. And it worked! The NBA has miles better passing and ball movement than either college game. It just happens to have miles better athleticism, play sophistication, defensive execution, and shot making as well. Maybe you don't know that because you watch little pro ball. That is fine; don't watch if you prefer not to. But also don't pass judgment on something of which you have little knowledge.

Why a basketball board would be so heavily populated by people who hate the league in which basketball is played at its absolute peak is a perversity I will never understand.

mo.st.dukie
03-11-2015, 11:06 AM
It all just comes back to talent and experienced talent. The more basketball talent that is on the floor the less the shot clock and various other rules matter because those guys are more capable of playing a prettier game of basketball. I get the idea that nothing can be done about that, the NBA holds the power there, and so the college game should make tweaks. That's fine but don't expect rule changes to fix the problem of simply having less talent on the floor. Could you imagine this years group of Duke freshmen as seniors? The shot clock could be 60 seconds and that group would easily average 90+ per game and look good doing it.

Trey21
03-11-2015, 11:17 AM
There are a lot of outdated preconceptions about the NBA, especially if you haven't consistently watched it over the past decade. The NBA product right now is the best that I have ever seen it in terms of team play. Teams like the Spurs, Golden State, Hawks, Miami (big three era), and many more just play beautiful and free flowing basketball. You'll rarely/never see a college team move the ball as calculated as they do. Each possession is like a move on the chess board, and like true professionals they hardly need any time setting up their approach and attack. You've even got teams that will bang down low in Memphis. There are a bunch of factors that play into the reason why the NBA has gotten a lot better, but right now it is a better overall product than college. Sure teams don't really turn it up until after the All-Star break but even routine NBA games are more watchable than most college games. That said has great as the NBA playoffs are, they will never be as unpredictable or exciting as March Madness.

I'm not sure what to do with the college game. I think the most obvious thing to fix would be changing to the shot clock to 30 seconds. My biggest problem with college is watching a PG dribble around the 3pt line for 20-25 seconds while the team tries to run their play. Makes the game overly stagnant. This is a larger issues but the officiating in college is really mediocre. I understand that kids today are stronger and quicker, but I think the quality of the calls has been pretty poor for the past couple years.

PackMan97
03-11-2015, 11:32 AM
I think that with better athletes, it's just becoming harder to score the basketball. The solution I think it to stretch the court. Let's make the court 10 feet longer on each end and 5 feet wider on each side.

Those teams that play in venues that can't accommodate a larger court will just have to shut down their program ;)

DarkstarWahoo
03-11-2015, 11:53 AM
How about a water polo restart after every basket? Put the ball on the floor in the center circle, put the teams on opposite baselines, and designate one player on each team to go get the ball on the whistle. That oughta be fun.

Yes, I am trolling the change-the-rules crew.

The XBAA!

MarkD83
03-11-2015, 12:31 PM
I think that with better athletes, it's just becoming harder to score the basketball. The solution I think it to stretch the court. Let's make the court 10 feet longer on each end and 5 feet wider on each side.

Those teams that play in venues that can't accommodate a larger court will just have to shut down their program ;)

Only if the Pack moves their home games back to Reynolds :)

CDu
03-11-2015, 12:37 PM
I agree with those who have said that the NBA game is way more team-oriented and entertaining than many are giving credit. The quality of play is just SOOOO high in the NBA right now.

I disagree with the idea that shortening the shot-clock will improve the quality of play. I don't think that the length of the shot clock has much at all to do with the problems with the college game. I think the real issue is that defenses are allowed to foul without call WAY too much, and it has disrupted the flow of play.

If you don't fix the excessive physicality/fouling and just shorten the shot clock, what you'll see is just an increase in the number low-quality possessions that we already see.

PackMan97
03-11-2015, 12:41 PM
Only if the Pack moves their home games back to Reynolds :)

Reynolds will be unavailable for a while due to renovations (http://www.gopack.com/facilities/athletics-facility-enhancements.html). Due to a capacity reduction down to 5,500 seats it has likely seen it's last Men's basketball game played there (curse you Karl Hess and Wofford!). That said, both Cameron and Reynolds would easily accommodate a larger floor if the lower level seats were removed.


I think the real issue is that defenses are allowed to foul without call WAY too much, and it has disrupted the flow of play.

If you don't fix the excessive physicality/fouling and just shorten the shot clock, what you'll see is just an increase in the number low-quality possessions that we already see.

This.

TNDukeFan
03-11-2015, 12:50 PM
The last three minutes of the game is the worst in sports, fix it.

I'd love for the NCAA to consider giving the team fouled the option of shooting free throws or bringing the ball in bounds. No (or less) walking up and down the floor the last three minutes.

DarkstarWahoo
03-11-2015, 12:50 PM
I think that with better athletes, it's just becoming harder to score the basketball. The solution I think it to stretch the court. Let's make the court 10 feet longer on each end and 5 feet wider on each side.

Those teams that play in venues that can't accommodate a larger court will just have to shut down their program ;)

Dang, I knew UVA ditched University Hall too soon.

Wahoo2000
03-11-2015, 01:05 PM
Does anyone know where to find Offensive Efficiency for the entire sport for this and previous seasons? That is, there have been X points scored in college basketball this season and Y possessions played. I want X divided by Y for this and previous seasons.

Since I don't have that, I used KenPom to make a table showing Median Offensive Efficiency going back to 2002 and Median Tempo for those seasons as well. Assuming a normal distribution, I would think that is a good approximation of the National Offensive Efficiency (i.e. the X / Y from above).



Year
Median Offensive Efficiency
Median Tempo


2002
100.5
69.8


2003
101.2
68.5


2004
100.7
67.7


2005
101.3
67.2


2006
101.5
66.8


2007
101.9
66.7


2008
101.8
66.6


2009
100.9
66.3


2010
101.0
67.2


2011
101.2
66.5


2012
100.6
66.0


2013
100.6
65.9


2014
104.1
66.3


2015
101.6
64.7



As you can see, Offensive Efficiency hasn't been THAT bad this year. 2015's OE of 101.6 ranks 4th in the past 14 years.

It's just that this is BY FAR the slowest season we've played over that time period.

Absolutely NO surprise that last season was FAR & away the best offensive efficiency in the last 15 years. Also the only year they've really enforced the "freedom of movement" part of basketball (NO hand checking, no chucking cutters, and almost impossible to take a charge).

ANYONE who thinks this is coincidental is kidding themselves. The rules committee made a massive error in reversing the changes from 2013-14. Sure, the games were ugly with a ton of foul shots. That was really only due to tendencies created by years of ALLOWING hand-checking, bumping cutters, and flopping. There's always going to be an adjustment period to changes THAT significant, but the adjustment would come and fouls would go down.

Want prettier games? Go back to those exact rule changes, AND shorten to a 30 second shot clock. Scoring will go up significantly, and the freedom of movement will allow for better/prettier offense.

killerleft
03-11-2015, 01:13 PM
I'd love for the NCAA to consider giving the team fouled the option of shooting free throws or bringing the ball in bounds. No (or less) walking up and down the floor the last three minutes.

I would do this, PLUS: after a to-be-determined number of fouls in an also-to-be-determined amount of time, the fouled team may shoot free throws AND get the ball back.

killerleft
03-11-2015, 01:25 PM
Absolutely NO surprise that last season was FAR & away the best offensive efficiency in the last 15 years. Also the only year they've really enforced the "freedom of movement" part of basketball (NO hand checking, no chucking cutters, and almost impossible to take a charge).

ANYONE who thinks this is coincidental is kidding themselves. The rules committee made a massive error in reversing the changes from 2013-14. Sure, the games were ugly with a ton of foul shots. That was really only due to tendencies created by years of ALLOWING hand-checking, bumping cutters, and flopping. There's always going to be an adjustment period to changes THAT significant, but the adjustment would come and fouls would go down.

Want prettier games? Go back to those exact rule changes, AND shorten to a 30 second shot clock. Scoring will go up significantly, and the freedom of movement will allow for better/prettier offense.

The block/charge may be hard to officiate, but I am convinced that defensive players should always be entitled to position themselves between a driver and the basket if they get there before the driver leaves the floor. Forget that sily arm-movement ballet restriction. Letting the offense take advantage of the rule from last year changes the game fundamentally - enough for me to put up with the inconsistencies that will admittedly ALWAYS exist. Heck, they still existed anyway. Changing the exact timing does only that. The same decision STILL must be made.

Neals384
03-11-2015, 01:31 PM
I'd love for the NCAA to consider giving the team fouled the option of shooting free throws or bringing the ball in bounds. No (or less) walking up and down the floor the last three minutes.

I like it, but Jimmy V is rollin in his grave.

Neals384
03-11-2015, 01:36 PM
This is ignorant. The NBA plays fantastic team ball. As I mentioned in the previous post, one could make the argument that the NBA plays better team ball today than at any point in its history. The rules changes and officiating emphases established a decade ago have put a beautiful premium on ball movement and spacing. NBA offenses are far more sophisticated than anything happening in either men's or women's college hoops, and the best offenses involve all five players with screens, cuts, and misdirection. Never mind that star ball ABSOLUTELY happens in college ball all the time. How many times have we heard K state over the years that "The guys were a little guilty of standing around watching [standout Duke player that season]"?

The Spurs played better team ball winning their title last season than, ahem, the Shabazz Napier Huskies did. This year, the Golden State Warriors are an incredibly communal unit, as are the Atlanta Hawks. As are, again, the Spurs. Memphis plays defense with terrific potency, an ability honed from years of continuity as a unit. Even a star-heavy squad such as Cleveland only took off when they made two trades to balance their team and make it functional at every position.

But, by all means, keep hauling out bromides fifteen years past their sell-by date. Uninformed criticism of the NBA is *totally* the way to deal with problems in the college game. Hurray for 50-46 games becoming the new norm!

Hi, Des,

Put me in the College BB is more Watchable camp, but I gave up on the NBA long time ago, so you may be right. However, are there any statistics to back up the claim of more team-oriented offenses? Has the ratio of assists to field goals increased over the years?

Wahoo2000
03-11-2015, 01:45 PM
The block/charge may be hard to officiate, but I am convinced that defensive players should always be entitled to position themselves between a driver and the basket if they get there before the driver leaves the floor. Forget that sily arm-movement ballet restriction. Letting the offense take advantage of the rule from last year changes the game fundamentally - enough for me to put up with the inconsistencies that will admittedly ALWAYS exist. Heck, they still existed anyway. Changing the exact timing does only that. The same decision STILL must be made.

All they need to do is tell the refs that the charge can only be called if the player establishes position before the offensive player picks up his dribble, or makes the catch (if he's cutting). That would be A LOT more clear-cut than "beginning upward motion". 50/50 calls could totally go to the defense to somewhat balance things out.

I just think discouraging the strategy of "sliding in to take a charge" would be good for the game as it would encourage players to either challenge shots at the rim, or let the offensive player go. Charges (aka "player control fouls") would only happen when the offensive player actually IS out of control.

Another option would be to leave the rule as is, but tell the refs that ties/close calls will go to the offense. I'd also encourage the policy of giving T's to players who "flop" - i.e. caught on camera with ABSOLUTELY ZERO contact, but acting like they were hit by a mack truck (whether for a charge or any other contact - I think maybe a Louisville player did this against you guys or Kentucky this year?). Reviews could happen during next timeout, or automatically in the last 2 minutes.

CDu
03-11-2015, 02:15 PM
Absolutely NO surprise that last season was FAR & away the best offensive efficiency in the last 15 years. Also the only year they've really enforced the "freedom of movement" part of basketball (NO hand checking, no chucking cutters, and almost impossible to take a charge).

ANYONE who thinks this is coincidental is kidding themselves. The rules committee made a massive error in reversing the changes from 2013-14. Sure, the games were ugly with a ton of foul shots. That was really only due to tendencies created by years of ALLOWING hand-checking, bumping cutters, and flopping. There's always going to be an adjustment period to changes THAT significant, but the adjustment would come and fouls would go down.

Want prettier games? Go back to those exact rule changes, AND shorten to a 30 second shot clock. Scoring will go up significantly, and the freedom of movement will allow for better/prettier offense.

Completely and totally agree (though I'm indifferent on the shotclock change). The rules "changes" (which were largely more just a re-implementation of already-established ruels) last year were a good thing. They should have expected there to be growing pains. But rather than seeing the changes through to reap their benefit, they panicked and went back to the way things were. Had they stuck to their guns, teams would have eventually adapted. And it would have absolutely improved the flow of the game. But they took a short-term mindset at the expense of the long-term health of the game.

Wander
03-11-2015, 02:50 PM
I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about the shot clock. The slowest teams use less than 22 seconds on average. And the purpose of the shot clock, to me, is just to prevent four corners stuff, no dictate a certain style of play.

The worst part by far is the timeouts. Ends of close games are laughable. I would:
1. Move the TV timeouts to under 5 minutes rather than under 4 (maybe add 30 seconds to each one to make up for lost commercial revenue or whatever)
2. Eliminate one timeout for each team.
3. Ban calling two timeouts in a row without any time running off the clock.

Indoor66
03-11-2015, 02:54 PM
I am firmly in the camp of calling the existing rules - as they are written. Call ALL the fouls every game. If it turns into a foul shooting contest, so be it. The coaches and players will adjust and we will be back to skill over pure power - as the game was designed.

Look at some old time games and the skill, the ease of motion. It was something to behold.

Henderson
03-11-2015, 05:03 PM
If we spend our time at this point in the season coming up with radical fixes to a non-existent problem, how are we supposed to waste our time in the off-season? Geez, guys, save some grain for the lean periods.

Des Esseintes
03-11-2015, 08:36 PM
Hi, Des,

Put me in the College BB is more Watchable camp, but I gave up on the NBA long time ago, so you may be right. However, are there any statistics to back up the claim of more team-oriented offenses? Has the ratio of assists to field goals increased over the years?

Your question is tough to answer. I have a few varied thoughts, though.

1. The global A/fg statistic you're seeking likely exists, but I've had trouble finding it. The redoubtable Basketball Reference keeps a number of league-wide stats, but not that one. That said, I think assists to field goals is unlikely a good proxy for aesthetic enjoyment. As a local demonstration, while Duke offenses have historically been some of the most fun and exciting in college basketball, we're rarely at the top of this particular ranking. Nor have our "better" years by this stat necessarily coincided with our most gorgeous offenses. I also think it's basically a bad idea to assess aesthetics by a statistic *within* the thing being studied. To equate assists to quality basketball is akin to grading the prettiness of a film's cinematography by the number of flowers in the movie. As in, there's way too much happening for a single pass before a made bucket to measure whether people in the audience are getting their money's worth. True, one might argue that you could definitely assess the prettiness of a film by the number of its frames that feature Charlize Theron, but that overlooks Monster, where she played an overweight serial killer trucker...

2. A statistical measure that would be meaningful would be one that tracked whether people liked what they were watching. By all accounts, the NBA is enjoying a highwater mark in terms of popularity. More than anything else, I believe that speaks to an exciting, dynamic game.

3. Watch the Western Conference playoffs this year. If you can't find anything to like there, well, you're hard to please, basketball-wise.

vick
03-11-2015, 09:21 PM
Your question is tough to answer. I have a few varied thoughts, though.

1. The global A/fg statistic you're seeking likely exists, but I've had trouble finding it. The redoubtable Basketball Reference keeps a number of league-wide stats, but not that one. That said, I think assists to field goals is unlikely a good proxy for aesthetic enjoyment. As a local demonstration, while Duke offenses have historically been some of the most fun and exciting in college basketball, we're rarely at the top of this particular ranking. Nor have our "better" years by this stat necessarily coincided with our most gorgeous offenses. I also think it's basically a bad idea to assess aesthetics by a statistic *within* the thing being studied. To equate assists to quality basketball is akin to grading the prettiness of a film's cinematography by the number of flowers in the movie. As in, there's way too much happening for a single pass before a made bucket to measure whether people in the audience are getting their money's worth. True, one might argue that you could definitely assess the prettiness of a film by the number of its frames that feature Charlize Theron, but that overlooks Monster, where she played an overweight serial killer trucker...

2. A statistical measure that would be meaningful would be one that tracked whether people liked what they were watching. By all accounts, the NBA is enjoying a highwater mark in terms of popularity. More than anything else, I believe that speaks to an exciting, dynamic game.

3. Watch the Western Conference playoffs this year. If you can't find anything to like there, well, you're hard to please, basketball-wise.

I suspect we'll have a better idea on how to think about this empirically in a few years, if and when SportVU moves down to the major college level. For example, nba.com already tracks things like "secondary assists (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/team/passing/?sort=AST_SEC&dir=1)" (defined as passes made to players who earned an assist, with the "real" assister not having the ball more than four seconds or two dribbles). I don't think any NBA fans would be shocked to discover that the Warriors, Hawks, and Spurs are the top three teams in the metric. When it becomes possible to compare this number from the NBA to college, we'd have an idea whether college offenses are more "pass oriented" than NBA ones (I strongly suspect the answer will be "not usually").

vick
03-11-2015, 09:30 PM
I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about the shot clock. The slowest teams use less than 22 seconds on average. And the purpose of the shot clock, to me, is just to prevent four corners stuff, no dictate a certain style of play.

The worst part by far is the timeouts. Ends of close games are laughable. I would:
1. Move the TV timeouts to under 5 minutes rather than under 4 (maybe add 30 seconds to each one to make up for lost commercial revenue or whatever)
2. Eliminate one timeout for each team.
3. Ban calling two timeouts in a row without any time running off the clock.

I agree with your three suggestions, but doesn't your argument about slowest teams cut both ways? If the slowest teams are only using 22 seconds, then this "it's so awful, college might look like the professional game" seems fairly overblown, right? Since the shorter shot clock has one nearly indisputable advantage--it makes late-game fouling less attractive tactically--if teams aren't using the whole clock most of the time anyway, why have the longer clock at all?

-jk
03-11-2015, 10:05 PM
I would do this, PLUS: after a to-be-determined number of fouls in an also-to-be-determined amount of time, the fouled team may shoot free throws AND get the ball back.

Been there. Done that. Bad free throw shooters were chased into the stands.

If it's 2 and the ball, it doesn't matter who you foul where.

-jk

Wahoo2000
03-11-2015, 10:29 PM
I agree with your three suggestions, but doesn't your argument about slowest teams cut both ways? If the slowest teams are only using 22 seconds, then this "it's so awful, college might look like the professional game" seems fairly overblown, right? Since the shorter shot clock has one nearly indisputable advantage--it makes late-game fouling less attractive tactically--if teams aren't using the whole clock most of the time anyway, why have the longer clock at all?

I think opponents of a 24 second clock are most worried about a shorter clock leading to much more 1 on 1 play, which would exaggerate the talent disparity among DI teams. This would be the death-knell of big upsets. In addition to the increase in 1 on 1 play, you're also adding a lot of possessions to the game which would make upsets that much more difficult (as possessions increase, teams are more likely to play "close" to their per-possession averages).

I don't have any issue with a 30 second clock. But I'm really not looking for teams to dribble up the floor, run one set play, and then when that doesn't work, back out and go one-on-one or pick and roll. College doesn't have the athletes (with developed skills) the NBA does. Don't make them play by the same rules.

Richard Berg
03-13-2015, 02:33 AM
If tonight's Spurs-Cavs game (aired right after we took State to the woodshed, obvious choice over Miami-ND) didn't entertain the NBA doubters, I can only conclude you don't like basketball.

uh_no
03-13-2015, 09:45 AM
If tonight's Spurs-Cavs game (aired right after we took State to the woodshed, obvious choice over Miami-ND) didn't entertain the NBA doubters, I can only conclude you don't like basketball.

when you cherry pick the best "team" in the NBA, of course it's going to support the argument.

There's a reason the spurs anihilated the heat last year....and it wasn't because the heat were playing a team game/great defense.

The spurs are about the only team I'd consider watching on a regular basis.

tbyers11
03-13-2015, 09:49 AM
when you cherry pick the best "team" in the NBA, of course it's going to support the argument.

There's a reason the spurs anihilated the heat last year....and it wasn't because the heat were playing a team game/great defense.

The spurs are about the only team I'd consider watching on a regular basis.

You need to watch more Golden State Warriors

Wahoo2000
03-13-2015, 12:45 PM
You need to watch more Golden State Warriors

^^This^^

For all the people who think the NBA is primarily solo/1-on-1 ball, nobody can shoot, it's not team basketball, they don't play defense, etc, etc, etc......

You're stuck in the past. Come back and give the NBA another chance - especially in April when the intensity ramps up as teams are jockeying for playoff position.

Neals384
03-16-2015, 01:14 PM
Folks who think a 30 second clock would help might enjoy this year's NIT:

"All 2015 NIT games will also include two experimental rules. Teams will compete using a 30-second shot clock instead of the current 35-second shot clock. The 31 games of the NIT will also have a four-foot restricted-area arc as opposed to the current three-foot arc."

MarkD83
03-16-2015, 01:23 PM
^^This^^

For all the people who think the NBA is primarily solo/1-on-1 ball, nobody can shoot, it's not team basketball, they don't play defense, etc, etc, etc......

You're stuck in the past. Come back and give the NBA another chance - especially in April when the intensity ramps up as teams are jockeying for playoff position.

This probably is a separate chain of thought from the rest of this thread...nonetheless...

My problem with the NBA is not the talent or team basketball but the ebb and flow of intensity. Yes when the Spurs play the Cavaliers I will watch because everyone is ready to play. (Except if Pop is sitting his best players.) When the playoffs start everyone is also ready to play and plays at a high level.

However, just tuning into a regular season NBA game is hit or miss whether I will enjoy it or not based on whether the players care about that given game. In college, even if the basketball play is not as crisp I get the sense that everyone is trying really hard and is intense. This also got me thinking about something I will start in a different thread....

Des Esseintes
03-16-2015, 02:08 PM
This probably is a separate chain of thought from the rest of this thread...nonetheless...

My problem with the NBA is not the talent or team basketball but the ebb and flow of intensity. Yes when the Spurs play the Cavaliers I will watch because everyone is ready to play. (Except if Pop is sitting his best players.) When the playoffs start everyone is also ready to play and plays at a high level.

However, just tuning into a regular season NBA game is hit or miss whether I will enjoy it or not based on whether the players care about that given game. In college, even if the basketball play is not as crisp I get the sense that everyone is trying really hard and is intense. This also got me thinking about something I will start in a different thread....

From where do you get this sense? I don't mean to single you out, because this perspective is extremely common, but it has never had a logical center for me. NBA players used to play in college. They aren't a different species of individual. The difference is that NBA players are full-grown adults who have managed to succeed in the world's most competitive sports league. NBA players play at the peak not only because they have greater athletic gifts on average, but also because they have learned to or possess an innate ability to outwork other similarly talented players. (There are always going to be big men that can collect a paycheck without giving max effort, but competition among the other four positions on the NBA court is FEROCIOUS. Moreover, gormless big men are even more widespread in the college game than the pro ranks.) Your average NBA player is pretty much *guaranteed* to be significantly more competitive than your average college player. If he wasn't a veritable psychopath of competitiveness and drive, someone else would steal his place.

So we've got teams of guys that truly know what hard work is, but they aren't trying hard in games? And college players always do try hard? I just do not believe that. It makes no sense. Are we really to accept that that Miami team, which slaughtered Duke but lost badly to a parade of scrub squads, brings a more consistent intensity than the Milwaukee Bucks? I've seen the Bucks play, and I've seen Miami play. The Bucks bring a much more consistent, passionate effort. And whatever team Frank Haith is in charge of right now--could that team be mistaken for a pack of Dobermans? I mean, no. Texas under Barnes? Those guys are the poster children for bringin' it? No.

Finally--and I'm definitely not speaking to you personally here; it just seems important to note--it's hard to escape the racial implications of a widely held belief that players in a black-dominated sport work harder when they play for free than when they play for real wages. Because, uh, those arguments go back further than, um, basketball.

Indoor66
03-16-2015, 09:12 PM
Finally--and I'm definitely not speaking to you personally here; it just seems important to note--it's hard to escape the racial implications of a widely held belief that players in a black-dominated sport work harder when they play for free than when they play for real wages. Because, uh, those arguments go back further than, um, basketball.

I am trying to figure out where this came from. I fail to see any relationship to any part of th rest of the thread and find it mostly inappropriate.