NCAA D1 Rule Changes for 2019-2020

[kAzE]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26905011/ncaa-moving-3-point-line-back-next-season

- 3 Point line will be moved from 20 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 22 feet, 1.75 inches.

- Shot clock will reset to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound.

- Players being assessed technical fouls for using derogatory language about an opponent's race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability;

- Allowing coaches to call live-ball timeouts in the last two minutes of the second half and overtime;

- Conducting instant replay review for goaltending or basket interference calls in the final two minutes of the second half and overtime.


I am so excited for these changes, especially the shot clock change. College hoops is going to be a little higher paced next year, and the paint will be a little less congested. Screw you, Virginia & other ultra-slow teams!

[WakeDevil]

I was unaware that the third rule was needed.

[CDu]

I have a few thoughts on these:

1. I am surprised that slurs weren't already grounds for a technical. Obviously, I'm glad that they are officially so now
2. I am not sure how I feel about the extension of the 3-point line vis-a-vis UVa. On the one hand, they'd have to go further out to defend the 3. On the other, by extending the 3pt line further, 3pt shooting %s will likely go down. If so, I could actually see UVa packing it in even more. If defending the 3 point line is less punitive, why wouldn't they decide to work even harder to protect the paint?
3. I love the reset to 20 seconds on offensive rebounds. That should definitely help with pace of play.

[Fish80]

Any initial thoughts on what moving the 3 point line does to 3 point percentage made? Any way to find stats?

[Truth&Justise]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26905011/ncaa-moving-3-point-line-back-next-season
- Conducting instant replay review for goaltending or basket interference calls in the final two minutes of the second half and overtime.


Have to imagine support for this grew after the LSU-Kentucky game, when LSU won on a buzzer-beating tip in that was probably offensive interference (https://youtu.be/ve0V_hZO-tg?t=142).

I understand the desire to get things right, but I am fairly against adding to the list of things that are reviewable. We have more than enough replay as it is. The sport has a real problem with games lacking flow at the end. This, while only an incremental change, continues to add to that problem.

[MCFinARL]

Have to imagine support for this grew after the LSU-Kentucky game, when LSU won on a buzzer-beating tip in that was probably offensive interference (https://youtu.be/ve0V_hZO-tg?t=142).

I understand the desire to get things right, but I am fairly against adding to the list of things that are reviewable. We have more than enough replay as it is. The sport has a real problem with games lacking flow at the end. This, while only an incremental change, continues to add to that problem.

Yes, I think this is a real risk. We already see endless delays at the end of games while refs review exactly where the clock should be--when who knows how many seconds may have run off erroneously earlier in the game?

[Nugget]

Have to imagine support for this grew after the LSU-Kentucky game, when LSU won on a buzzer-beating tip in that was probably offensive interference (https://youtu.be/ve0V_hZO-tg?t=142).

It's not clear that the LSU-Kentucky situation would qualify for review under this rule, since that was a no-call, rather than an erroneous call a la the one at the end of the UCLA-SMU first round NCAA game in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp2x4TiYTjY

[JetpackJesus]

I was unaware that the third rule was needed.

I guess it's an automatic technical under this new rule whereas before that type of language was grouped into the technicals refs could give, in their discretion, for taunting?


Any initial thoughts on what moving the 3 point line does to 3 point percentage made? Any way to find stats?
Here are stats cited in the announcement on NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2019-06-05/mens-college-basketball-3-point-line-extended-international):


Teams in the 2019 NIT averaged 23.1 field goal attempts in the tournament from behind the arc, compared with 22.8 3-point attempts in the 2018-19 regular season. The 3-point shooting percentage of teams in the 2019 NIT was 33%, compared with their regular season average of 35.2%.

When the line was moved before the 2008-09 season, the distance went from 19 feet, 9 inches to 20 feet, 9 inches. The percentage of 3-point shots made during that season compared with the previous season declined from 35.2% to 34.4%. The percentage of made 3-point field goals steadily increased back to 35.2% in Division I by the 2017-18 season.

[BigWayne]

I was unaware that the third rule was needed.

You would think there is a general rule against offensive actions and language that would cover these also. I can't believe they are setting up a system where one set of offensive insults is OK and only those on a specific list of categories is punishable. That would just be beyond comprehension.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm fine with all of these except the replay rule. Although that does not come up often, replays take WAYYYYYY to long and just kill the game.

I would be in favor of a rule -- replays must be concluded within 90 seconds or else the call stands. For everything. Soccer seems to be the only major sport that gets this right.

[elvis14]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26905011/ncaa-moving-3-point-line-back-next-season

- 3 Point line will be moved from 20 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 22 feet, 1.75 inches.

- Shot clock will reset to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound.

- Players being assessed technical fouls for using derogatory language about an opponent's race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability;

- Allowing coaches to call live-ball timeouts in the last two minutes of the second half and overtime;

- Conducting instant replay review for goaltending or basket interference calls in the final two minutes of the second half and overtime.


I am so excited for these changes, especially the shot clock change. College hoops is going to be a little higher paced next year, and the paint will be a little less congested. Screw you, Virginia & other ultra-slow teams!

At first glance, I like all of these. Especially the shot clock and 3 point line changes since they should be the most impactful. I do hope that they speed the game up some, improve spacing and makes the game flow more.


You would think there is a general rule against offensive actions and language that would cover these also. I can't believe they are setting up a system where one set of offensive insults is OK and only those on a specific list of categories is punishable. That would just be beyond comprehension.

Looking at the list above (which I bolded), I'd say that calling them out specifically is a great idea. Not get all PP but that's basically the 'don't go there' list when attempting to achieve common decency. If refs are consistent, players will learn very quickly what not to say (and hopefully they apply that lesson to their everyday life).

[CDu]

Any initial thoughts on what moving the 3 point line does to 3 point percentage made? Any way to find stats?

Well, it surely goes down. It is just a question of how much. Sounds like about 1-2% worse.

[BD80]

You would think there is a general rule against offensive actions and language that would cover these also. I can't believe they are setting up a system where one set of offensive insults is OK and only those on a specific list of categories is punishable. That would just be beyond comprehension.

Totally agree.

If one player call another a M____r F____r, is that a technical? Is he attacking the other's sexual propensities? What if he called him an oedipal A__ H__? Is there a difference?

Legislating such things is much like herding cats, pornography laws should have taught us that. As long as those with moral superiority on their side are making the rules, they'll keep trying.

[Acymetric]

- Allowing coaches to call live-ball timeouts in the last two minutes of the second half and overtime;

Ugh. I wasn't a fan of taking away the ability of a coach to call a timeout (nor of taking away the diving out of bounds timeout call) but this is even worse. Either they can or they can't, I hate the "inside 2 minutes" type rules in pretty much all sports but especially here.


- Conducting instant replay review for goaltending or basket interference calls in the final two minutes of the second half and overtime.


Again with the EoG rules. Otherwise, this would be a good thing except they're going to execute it terrribly and the already 10-15 minute long final 2 minutes is going to be damn near an hour.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Any initial thoughts on what moving the 3 point line does to 3 point percentage made? Any way to find stats?

I think our 2018-2019 three point percentage retroactively goes down even further. If possible.

[WakeDevil]

Totally agree.

If one player call another a M____r F____r, is that a technical? Is he attacking the other's sexual propensities? What if he called him an oedipal A__ H__? Is there a difference?

Legislating such things is much like herding cats, pornography laws should have taught us that. As long as those with moral superiority on their side are making the rules, they'll keep trying.

It is a solution in search of a problem.

[Troublemaker]

The longer 3-pt line's effect on OAD might be underrated. I think this might actually end the OAD era at Duke instead of counting on NBA owners and players to finally agree on a deal to end the OAD rule.

Whereas the previous 1' difference between high school and college was minor, the now ~2.5' difference is going to be a problem for college freshmen, imo. You basically want to recruit 3-4 year players who will have time to gradually extend their range. It's either that or you successfully recruit all the very best shooters in the nation every single year, guys that are already accurately shooting deep 3-pters while in high school a la Boogie Ellis.


I was unaware that the third rule was needed.



1. I am surprised that slurs weren't already grounds for a technical.


You would think there is a general rule against offensive actions and language that would cover these also. I can't believe they are setting up a system where one set of offensive insults is OK and only those on a specific list of categories is punishable. That would just be beyond comprehension.

Yeah, there is almost certainly already an "unsportsmanlike conduct" type rule that already covers these insults. Also, for many reasons, I don't think the insults were common in the game and going unpunished prior to this rule addition.

[duke2x]

A drumbeat you are starting to hear on TV in football, basketball, and baseball is to limit the time you can review tape to 60 seconds. (I think 90 seconds would be better.) It doesn't improve the quality of officiating to let it go for 10 minutes with the Halloween football game serving as a prime example. If you can't overturn the call in 90 seconds, it stands.

I'm questioning when basketball reviews start to go to a centralized center like football and baseball. If we reach that point, have two officials review the tape at once--one for the judgment call and one for the clock.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Last five minute reviews are in danger of ruining the game. The implicit extra time outs, the long dramatic pauses, the rest... Changes the end game.

[rsvman]

I pretty much hate all these rule changes except for lengthening the three.

I guess I kind of miss the game we called basketball when I was a kid. I don't understand all the food about pace of play. Why, exactly, is faster better? I don't see it.

Oh, and I'm glad they are allowing coaches to call time outs in the last two minutes, but it's too little. A coach should be able to call a time out anytime he wants one. For the life of me I don't know why they changed that rule in the first place.

Wow, I really sound like a curmudgeon in this post, lol.

[johnb]

A quick review of the evolution of rules: why the terms cager? Why “top of the key” meant more in the past. Why the use of the backboard ?

https://hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History

[revmel53]

I'm fine with all of these except the replay rule. Although that does not come up often, replays take WAYYYYYY to long and just kill the game.

I would be in favor of a rule -- replays must be concluded within 90 seconds or else the call stands. For everything. Soccer seems to be the only major sport that gets this right.

All replays in any sport take too long and end any momentum a team has built. And even after replay they don't always get it right. Bad choice in my opinion.

[superdave]

Too bad the charging call didnt exist when Tyler Hansborough played at Unc. He'd have been a role player at best.

[superdave]

- 3 Point line will be moved from 20 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 22 feet, 1.75 inches.


How does this compare to the Fiba line?

This should help open up the game more. I wonder if this reduces the effectiveness of a zone.

[camion]

A modest proposal:

Instead of increasing video reviews during the last two minutes how about banning video replays during the last two minutes? :)

[rocketeli]

I pretty much hate all these rule changes except for lengthening the three.

I guess I kind of miss the game we called basketball when I was a kid. I don't understand all the food about pace of play. Why, exactly, is faster better? I don't see it.

Oh, and I'm glad they are allowing coaches to call time outs in the last two minutes, but it's too little. A coach should be able to call a time out anytime he wants one. For the life of me I don't know why they changed that rule in the first place.

Wow, I really sound like a curmudgeon in this post, lol.

I feel the same way. I don't want to see every game turn into a 70s style NBA shootfest. I love a good strategic or defensive battle. I would actually be fine with no shot clock at all, but what I would like to see would be a return to the less physical play of the 70s. Not that the game wasn't pretty physical back then, but now the main thing, I think, that makes college basketball slow and ugly now is excessive physicality. Every game I watch I see guys climbing over backs and shoving people out of bounds to get rebounds-no call, players driving to the hoop and hammered to the floor-no call, and so on. Start calling fouls, and spacing will happen!
On a related note, I hate, hate, hate all reviews. It's a call, not an execution. Just deal with the fact that no ref is ever going to be 100% right, and it's just a game and get on with your life. Reviews can turn ever ref into a TV Teddy, too, inserting themselves into the game flow and having an unnecessary effect on the outcome.

[Indoor66]

A modest proposal:

Instead of increasing video reviews during the last two minutes how about banning video replays during the last two minutes? :)

Better yet, ban all video replays and let the refs be refs. :mad:

[TruBlu]

Better yet, ban all video replays and let the refs be refs. :mad:

Can TV Teddy start being an actual (good) ref?

[Neals384]

I'm fine with all of these except the replay rule. Although that does not come up often, replays take WAYYYYYY to long and just kill the game.

I would be in favor of a rule -- replays must be concluded within 90 seconds or else the call stands. For everything. Soccer seems to be the only major sport that gets this right.


A drumbeat you are starting to hear on TV in football, basketball, and baseball is to limit the time you can review tape to 60 seconds. (I think 90 seconds would be better.) It doesn't improve the quality of officiating to let it go for 10 minutes with the Halloween football game serving as a prime example. If you can't overturn the call in 90 seconds, it stands.

I'm questioning when basketball reviews start to go to a centralized center like football and baseball. If we reach that point, have two officials review the tape at once--one for the judgment call and one for the clock.

It'll never happen. 60 or 90 seconds isn't enough time for ESPN to sneak in a commercial break. :cool:

[superdave]

It'll never happen. 60 or 90 seconds isn't enough time for ESPN to sneak in a commercial break. :cool:

Doesnt have to be hard. Isnt there always a 4th ref at the table? Let them handle replay and require a decision within 60 seconds of the whistle.

[bullettoothtony]

A drumbeat you are starting to hear on TV in football, basketball, and baseball is to limit the time you can review tape to 60 seconds. (I think 90 seconds would be better.) It doesn't improve the quality of officiating to let it go for 10 minutes with the Halloween football game serving as a prime example. If you can't overturn the call in 90 seconds, it stands.

I'm questioning when basketball reviews start to go to a centralized center like football and baseball. If we reach that point, have two officials review the tape at once--one for the judgment call and one for the clock.



Yeah well that drumbeat is asinine. Getting the call right trumps everything else, obviously that's why it was implemented in the first place. The implications are just too important to affix some arbitrary number of seconds to conduct the review in a feckless attempt to placate the eternally frustrated.

Give me a break. So tired of the cacophonous warbling of whining weasels peddling a solution in search of a problem.

[MChambers]

Yeah well that drumbeat is asinine. Getting the call right trumps everything else, obviously that's why it was implemented in the first place. The implications are just too important to affix some arbitrary number of seconds to conduct the review in a feckless attempt to placate the eternally frustrated.

Give me a break. So tired of the cacophonous warbling of whining weasels peddling a solution in search of a problem.

If it takes a replay reviewer more than a minute to decide, the original call is not clearly wrong and should stand.

[elvis14]

Totally agree.

If one player call another a M____r F____r, is that a technical? Is he attacking the other's sexual propensities? What if he called him an oedipal A__ H__? Is there a difference?

Legislating such things is much like herding cats, pornography laws should have taught us that. As long as those with moral superiority on their side are making the rules, they'll keep trying.

Both of your examples are just fine. It's not anywhere near as M_____ F___ing hard as you suggest to teach these young men to show simple decency in regards to a small set of simple issues and not be a bunch of A__ H___s. When was the last time you saw a player make a play and do a throat slash? I don't remember because it was taken out of the game and it's not missed.

[Lar77]

Like the rule changes, but agree with the posters who would like to limit review time on instant replay. Instead of the ESPN-inspired look at every possible angle, have a limited time, do not allow the coach to talk to the players (probably unenforceable, but the extra timeout(s) is(are) ridiculous), and let the sideline ref make the call.

Have to laugh at the technical for language (although I agree with it). Players will evolve their own lexicon to imply the insult without actually using it.

[ChillinDuke]

It'll never happen. 60 or 90 seconds isn't enough time for ESPN to sneak in a commercial break. :cool:

When will the day come when "commercial breaks" turn into split screens? I know at first blush it sounds crazy, but is it really worse than what we have now? You already have ESPN split-screening more than I can handle, whether it's Joey Brackets, Zion's injury and his facial expressions, Grayson-cam, etc. So putting a commercial on split screen wouldn't be overly novel at this point. And most importantly, in theory, it untethers the game to the requirement of commercial breaks. The game can go at its own flow and not have to worry about when commercials must air.

That last part is the part I love most about the concept.

Commercials aren't going anywhere, unless the world moves to a sports subscription model which seems harder to imagine at the moment. So I wish we could reimagine commercials so that our sporting events can be a little less beholden to those influences.

- Chillin

[Lar77]

When will the day come when "commercial breaks" turn into split screens? I know at first blush it sounds crazy, but is it really worse than what we have now? You already have ESPN split-screening more than I can handle, whether it's Joey Brackets, Zion's injury and his facial expressions, Grayson-cam, etc. So putting a commercial on split screen wouldn't be overly novel at this point. And most importantly, in theory, it untethers the game to the requirement of commercial breaks. The game can go at its own flow and not have to worry about when commercials must air.

That last part is the part I love most about the concept.

Commercials aren't going anywhere, unless the world moves to a sports subscription model which seems harder to imagine at the moment. So I wish we could reimagine commercials so that our sporting events can be a little less beholden to those influences.

- Chillin

I think even a sports subscription model will have ads (greed being what it is). A "brief" picture in picture or split screen model doesn't bother me. A scroll would be even better.

[Acymetric]

When will the day come when "commercial breaks" turn into split screens?

A little less than 3 months ago, at the very latest.

[Bluedog]

Umm, Auburn vs. NMState, NCAAT first round, during the Aggies' player's three free throws at the end of the game.

And not only that, Auburn did it AGAIN when UVa went to the foul line in the exact same situation -- down 2, shooting three FTs, but this time, the guy (pun intended) made them.

[English]

When will the day come when "commercial breaks" turn into split screens? I know at first blush it sounds crazy, but is it really worse than what we have now? You already have ESPN split-screening more than I can handle, whether it's Joey Brackets, Zion's injury and his facial expressions, Grayson-cam, etc. So putting a commercial on split screen wouldn't be overly novel at this point. And most importantly, in theory, it untethers the game to the requirement of commercial breaks. The game can go at its own flow and not have to worry about when commercials must air.

That last part is the part I love most about the concept.

Commercials aren't going anywhere, unless the world moves to a sports subscription model which seems harder to imagine at the moment. So I wish we could reimagine commercials so that our sporting events can be a little less beholden to those influences.

- Chillin

This is already happening and has been for awhile. It hasn't totally replaced actual TV timeouts in most sports, but it's replaced some in some sports. The French Open has been doing it quite a bit this year. Of course, with audiences as they are nowadays, there are always going to be people who complain that a pivotal moment in a game/match is lost because of one of these picture-in-picture ads. People love to be upset.

Count me among those that think replay reviews should be given a time limit. If the intent is to overturn only calls that are without question, refs shouldn't take more than a minute or two...if you can't tell that you missed a call within that time, it's not without-a-doubt. Play stands as called. Move on.

[DU82]

Like the rule changes, but agree with the posters who would like to limit review time on instant replay. Instead of the ESPN-inspired look at every possible angle, have a limited time, do not allow the coach to talk to the players (probably unenforceable, but the extra timeout(s) is(are) ridiculous), and let the sideline ref make the call.

Have to laugh at the technical for language (although I agree with it). Players will evolve their own lexicon to imply the insult without actually using it.

Simple fix for this, and the”timeout” after a player's Fifth foul. Direct the four/five players on the court to assemble within the free throw circle their team’s bench. Violations after a first warning would be a bench technical.

[kAzE]

How does this compare to the Fiba line?

This should help open up the game more. I wonder if this reduces the effectiveness of a zone.

22 feet, 1.75 inches, or 6.75 meters, is the exact same as the FIBA 3 point line. The WNBA also uses this line. In retrospect, it seems strange that college basketball had used a distance that literally no other level of basketball uses for such a long time.

[UrinalCake]

I propose we give the refs better replay equipment than a 14 inch TFT monitor.

[Reilly]

... I'm glad they are allowing coaches to call time outs in the last two minutes, but it's too little. A coach should be able to call a time out anytime he wants one ...

I disagree. What's the FIBA rule -- timeouts can only be called during a stop in action or something like that? I recall liking the last time watching the Olympics or World Cup -- the ends of games seemed to go smoothly.

[Acymetric]

Simple fix for this, and the”timeout” after a player's Fifth foul. Direct the four/five players on the court to assemble within the free throw circle their team’s bench. Violations after a first warning would be a bench technical.

That avoids allowing coaches to use them as timeouts, but I think that concern is secondary to the fact that replay time is far too long.

[Acymetric]

I propose we give the refs better replay equipment than a 14 inch TFT monitor.

Better solution: The refs don't do the review themselves. Sky judge! Review can only take place at full-speed, no slow-mo. If it isn't obvious enough to overturn the call after 30 seconds of full-speed replays from various angles, the call stands and we move on.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Per the offensive rebound rule change...
So if we are trying to burn clock, and have the lead, will we see our guys run under the basket and intentionally clang the ball off the rim in hopes of catching it again? I'm assuming that as long as the ball is tossed towards the basket, it counts as a shot, right?

Will we see intentional misses like we do occasionally at the free throw line?

[MChambers]

Per the offensive rebound rule change...
So if we are trying to burn clock, and have the lead, will we see our guys run under the basket and intentionally clang the ball off the rim in hopes of catching it again? I'm assuming that as long as the ball is tossed towards the basket, it counts as a shot, right?

Will we see intentional misses like we do occasionally at the free throw line?

Why wouldn't that already be happening under the old rule, where the shot clock reset to 30 seconds?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Why wouldn't that already be happening under the old rule, where the shot clock reset to 30 seconds?

Brain cramp. For whatever reason I was thinking it didn't reset.
Duh.

Hmmm, kinda surprising the clang the ball off the rim strategy hasn't been employed more, then.

[English]

22 feet, 1.75 inches, or 6.75 meters, is the exact same as the FIBA 3 point line. The WNBA also uses this line. In retrospect, it seems strange that college basketball had used a distance that literally no other level of basketball uses for such a long time.

You think that's strange...what if I told you that men's college basketball divides a basketball game in a way that literally no other level of basketball uses? Mindblow, amirite?!

[kAzE]

You think that's strange...what if I told you that men's college basketball divides a basketball game in a way that literally no other level of basketball uses? Mindblow, amirite?!

I actually don't mind two 20 minute halves. It makes the game flow a little better. the four 10 minute quarters in FIBA makes the game way too segmented, IMO. Quarters are fine for the NBA, since the game is 8 minutes longer.

But I do wish college would just go to the 24 second shot clock. Why 30 is such an institution is beyond my comprehension. 24/14 is so much better. More possessions is always more watchable.

[Acymetric]

Brain cramp. For whatever reason I was thinking it didn't reset.
Duh.

Hmmm, kinda surprising the clang the ball off the rim strategy hasn't been employed more, then.

Is there anything that would make such a move not technically a rebound? Also, there would be non-negligible risk of accidentally scoring for the other team or losing control (plus in milk-the-clock situations I would think the defenders will be playing some form of aggressive defense to prevent time wasting in general).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But I do wish college would just go to the 24 second shot clock. Why 30 is such an institution is beyond my comprehension. 24/14 is so much better. More possessions is always more watchable.

The 30 second clock is only 2-3 years old....hardly an institution......and I don't think more possessions is 'necessarily' more watchable. I do not want the college game to turn into a clone of the NBA.

[DU82]

A drumbeat you are starting to hear on TV in football, basketball, and baseball is to limit the time you can review tape to 60 seconds. (I think 90 seconds would be better.) It doesn't improve the quality of officiating to let it go for 10 minutes with the Halloween football game serving as a prime example. If you can't overturn the call in 90 seconds, it stands.

I'm questioning when basketball reviews start to go to a centralized center like football and baseball. If we reach that point, have two officials review the tape at once--one for the judgment call and one for the clock.

One of the new rule changes allows conferences to have a central review rather than the refs on court.

Rule change 15

To permit a conference to conduct collaborative instant replay review process at an offsite location during conference play.
Rationale: To enhance the accuracy of and facilitate the instant replay review process.

[wsb3]

I'm fine with all of these except the replay rule. Although that does not come up often, replays take WAYYYYYY to long and just kill the game.

I would be in favor of a rule -- replays must be concluded within 90 seconds or else the call stands. For everything. Soccer seems to be the only major sport that gets this right.

I agree OPK. They take way too long.But I am for 60 seconds or call on the floor stands.

[uh_no]

Have to laugh at the technical for language (although I agree with it). Players will evolve their own lexicon to imply the insult without actually using it.

now they'll be calling each others' parents hamsters and and accusing them of exuding edelberries.

[rsvman]

I actually don't mind two 20 minute halves. It makes the game flow a little better. the four 10 minute quarters in FIBA makes the game way too segmented, IMO. Quarters are fine for the NBA, since the game is 8 minutes longer.

But I do wish college would just go to the 24 second shot clock. Why 30 is such an institution is beyond my comprehension. 24/14 is so much better. More possessions is always more watchable.

Couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd be happier if they went back to 40 seconds, or even 45. More possessions, for me, is not more watchable. It is more mindless, for sure. The shorter the clock, the less likely it is that a team will actually run an interesting and coherent offense, or even develop an offensive strategy.
If you want the college game to be the NBA, by all means continue shortening the clock. Let's make it so that the only viable options are pick and roll, and iso plays.

No thanks. Again, I just don't understand the fascination with speed and high scores. The game had a lot more subtleties and strategies in days gone by, in my opinion. *Shakes fist at sky*

[UrinalCake]

But I do wish college would just go to the 24 second shot clock. Why 30 is such an institution is beyond my comprehension. 24/14 is so much better. More possessions is always more watchable.

I'm ok with college being at 30. I think the mental aspect of the game is underrated and it puts a lot of pressure to have to make decisions so quickly within the possession. The younger guys haven't developed that yet, so with a 24 second clock we'd see a ton of turnovers and rushed/bad shots. 35 was too long though, I think 30 is just about right.

I love the change to reset the clock to only 20 after an offensive rebound. With a full clock you get 10 seconds to get the ball across half court and then 20 seconds to get up a shot. But after an offensive rebound you're already on your side of the court, so you don't need the extra 10 seconds. In end game scenarios we love to praise teams for grabbing offensive boards as being tough and playing hard but the reality is that a lot of offensive rebounding just comes down to luck, especially off missed threes. So when a team has a lead and is burning clock and jacks up a three and gets the offensive board, I don't want them to be able to run off another 30 seconds. That's boring and just leads to more fouling and deciding games at the free throw line.

[lotusland]

Like the rule changes, but agree with the posters who would like to limit review time on instant replay. Instead of the ESPN-inspired look at every possible angle, have a limited time, do not allow the coach to talk to the players (probably unenforceable, but the extra timeout(s) is(are) ridiculous), and let the sideline ref make the call.

Have to laugh at the technical for language (although I agree with it). Players will evolve their own lexicon to imply the insult without actually using it.

Well the “N” word is only a slur if a white person says it and “queer” is now the preferred catch all term for LGTBQ so it could be tricky. Too bad George Carlin is not still around to compile a list of offensive terms for the NCAA. As others have said the rules already prohibit unsportsmanlike conduct so I’m not sure that this changes anything.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Is there anything that would make such a move not technically a rebound? Also, there would be non-negligible risk of accidentally scoring for the other team or losing control (plus in milk-the-clock situations I would think the defenders will be playing some form of aggressive defense to prevent time wasting in general).

Talking offense, not defense...so if it does go in the bucket, it's your points. (Not Tyler Zeller points)

Shot clock down to one, jump up, "weak dunk" it, get ball back in your hands, and enjoy your next 30 (now 20) seconds of possession.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well the “N” word is only a slur if a white person says it and “queer” is now the preferred catch all term for LGTBQ so it could be tricky. Too bad George Carlin is not still around to compile a list of offensive terms for the NCAA. As others have said the rules already prohibit unsportsmanlike conduct so I’m not sure that this changes anything.

I disagree. I think the fact the NCAA was compelled to mentions these verbal taunts about race, gender, orientation, etc tells us that it is a bigger issue than we might see.
Amd I'm certainly not in the business of telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be offended by. That's a losing battle.
I'm not going to be so naive as to think there aren't athletes of any and every ilk that are subjected to language at small colleges in small towns that would make me blush.

[Troublemaker]

Amd I'm certainly not in the business of telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be offended by. That's a losing battle.
I'm not going to be so naive as to think there aren't athletes of any and every ilk that are subjected to language at small colleges in small towns that would make me blush.

I believe you're negatively and inaccurately stereotyping small colleges / towns here.


I disagree. I think the fact the NCAA was compelled to mentions these verbal taunts about race, gender, orientation, etc tells us that it is a bigger issue than we might see.


Oh, I don't think so. We're talking about testosterone-filled, well-built, 18-22 year-old athletes here. It's not exactly a demographic that's going to back down from a racial slur, for example. And even if the target of the abuse just happens to be shy, it's unrealistic to expect that no teammate throws a punch on his behalf. If the problem were rampant or anywhere close, there would be many more fights and also news reporting on the incidents. There would be many more players suspended by their own school because most schools wouldn't put up with that behavior even if the referees do. There would maybe also be lawsuits to point to if NCAA referees were really regularly allowing such conduct to go unpunished instead of ejecting the offenders for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's just unrealistic to think the incidents are anything but extremely rare.

I can hear you asking what the NCAA's motivation for this rule would be then. I think positive news coverage is a sufficient explanation. Certainly I've seen people who would usually be very critical of the NCAA (I believe you're one, right?) praise the NCAA for this rule. And such critics have also probably subconsciously raised their opinion of the NCAA, however slight the raise is. Also, if one were uncynical, one could buy that the NCAA believes it's worth officially codifying this new rule even if the incidents that occur are extremely rare (and despite unsportsmanlike conduct already being on the books). If just one slur is potentially eliminated because of this new rule...

[DukeandMdFan]

I have a few thoughts on these:

1. I am surprised that slurs weren't already grounds for a technical. Obviously, I'm glad that they are officially so now


Not a real change, just codifying it...

From 2018-2019 Men's Rulebook, http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR19.pdf

pg 96
Section 3. CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions
Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to, the following:

b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel.

pg 106

Section 1. Bench Decorum
a. Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Coaches and bench personnel are expected to adhere to the specific rule set forth in Rule 10-3.2. Repeated or prolonged violations of these rules should result in a technical foul being assessed against the coach or other bench personnel. More egregious conduct violations, while inside or outside the coaching box, should be properly and consistently penalized with a technical foul without warning. Examples of egregious conduct violations include (emphasis mine), but are not limited to, the following:

2. Profane, vulgar, threatening or derogatory remarks or personal comments relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation directed at or referring to any game official or opposing player/bench personnel.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I believe you're negatively and inaccurately stereotyping small colleges / towns here.



Ok, fair, I sort of set my own trap and walked into that one. I did not intend to denigrate small towns and/or small colleges. I have lived in and attended both over the years.
My point was that I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking "NCAA = ACC" or "NCAA = March Madness." Which is true, but it is also small college women's track and field and men's volleyball. We might watch a nationally televised Duke basketball game and think "hard to imagine these athletes using offensive language like this," but the issues are much more likely to be places with fewer eyeballs and cameras.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify.


Oh, I don't think so. We're talking about testosterone-filled, well-built, 18-22 year-old athletes here. It's not exactly a demographic that's going to back down from a racial slur, for example. And even if the target of the abuse just happens to be shy, it's unrealistic to expect that no teammate throws a punch on his behalf. If the problem were rampant or anywhere close, there would be many more fights and also news reporting on the incidents. There would be many more players suspended by their own school because most schools wouldn't put up with that behavior even if the referees do. There would maybe also be lawsuits to point to if NCAA referees were really regularly allowing such conduct to go unpunished instead of ejecting the offenders for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's just unrealistic to think the incidents are anything but extremely rare.

I can hear you asking what the NCAA's motivation for this rule would be then. I think positive news coverage is a sufficient explanation. Certainly I've seen people who would usually be very critical of the NCAA (I believe you're one, right?) praise the NCAA for this rule. And such critics have also probably subconsciously raised their opinion of the NCAA, however slight the raise is. Also, if one were uncynical, one could buy that the NCAA believes it's worth officially codifying this new rule even if the incidents that occur are extremely rare (and despite unsportsmanlike conduct already being on the books). If just one slur is potentially eliminated because of this new rule...

I don't buy into the argument that "if language like this was beung used, there would be fist fights so we would know." But intelligent minds can disagree I suppose.

I am definitely someone who is generally hypercritical of the NCAA and tend to distrust them. But I don't see the downside here - even if you really believe they are addressing a problem that doesn't exist, so what?

I also see this is likely in danger of moving to PBB discussion, so I will take your answer off the air and respectfully remain silent.

From my perspective, we can have an argument about the new three point line and its effect on Duke, and we can nitpick about video replay and how it might delay games unnecessarily, and it's probably much more compelling board material.

[UrinalCake]

Shot clock down to one, jump up, "weak dunk" it, get ball back in your hands, and enjoy your next 30 (now 20) seconds of possession.

If you were in a position to do that, why wouldn’t you just score the basket?

[Troublemaker]

Ok, fair, I sort of set my own trap and walked into that one. I did not intend to denigrate small towns and/or small colleges. I have lived in and attended both over the years.
My point was that I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking "NCAA = ACC" or "NCAA = March Madness." Which is true, but it is also small college women's track and field and men's volleyball. We might watch a nationally televised Duke basketball game and think "hard to imagine these athletes using offensive language like this," but the issues are much more likely to be places with fewer eyeballs and cameras.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

See the post right above yours and also the original article in the threadstarter. These are specifically men's basketball changes. (Although I also doubt that these insults are anything but extremely rare in women's track and field and men's volleyball, too :-)



I don't buy into the argument that "if language like this was beung used, there would be fist fights so we would know." But intelligent minds can disagree I suppose.

Even if you don't buy that one line, I bet you buy into one of the other arguments I've made :-)



I am definitely someone who is generally hypercritical of the NCAA and tend to distrust them. But I don't see the downside here - even if you really believe they are addressing a problem that doesn't exist, so what?

You're basically just re-phrasing my final point from my previous post; the NCAA might believe it's worth it even if just one slur...

No one has argued that there is downside, just that the "new rule" is superfluous because of unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Indoor66]

No thanks. Again, I just don't understand the fascination with speed and high scores. The game had a lot more subtleties and strategies in days gone by, in my opinion. *Shakes fist at sky*

I am sure it is a failed memory, but I seem to recall more games in the 90's and 100's when Vic Bubas was coaching that we get now.

[UrinalCake]

Here's a cool analysis of what happened in the mid-90's when the NBA briefly moved the three point line in, then reverted back. The raw data shows that three point shooting percentage went up slightly, but overall scoring actually went down (which motivated the change back to the original distance). This study aims to determine how "good shooting" teams were affected. In summary, they were not affected when the line was moved in, but WERE affected when it moved back out.

link (http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/05/does-moving-the-nba-3-point-line-help-good-3-point-shooting-teams/)

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I am sure it is a failed memory, but I seem to recall more games in the 90's and 100's when Vic Bubas was coaching that we get now.

Interesting....as basketball evolved, the offensive skills were the emphasis for a while. Then when offenses dominated, more emphasis was put on athleticism and defense in order to shut down the offenses.....and back and forth it goes. Act and react.....as we are seeing now in the "Curry" era of 3 ball emphasis.

[DarkstarWahoo]

To take it back to the first post, I'm obviously biased, but I don't see these changes as a bad thing for UVA at all. Nothing was stopping teams from bombing away from a foot behind the line under the previous rules. If shooting from farther out was the key to extending and unlocking the packline, I think teams would have been trying it already. Instead, the only time UVA really saw that happen to any significant degree was with Carsen Edwards and Purdue, and the endgame wasn't "Open the lane for drives," but rather "Edwards continues to hit more and more difficult shots, taking years off Darkstar's life in the process."

In particular - and let me be clear that this is specific to the 18-19 team only - I think Duke would have suffered from this rule. The shooting and spacing issues with your team this year have already been well discussed, and making Jones, Barrett and the rest shoot 3s from farther out wouldn't have alleviated that. Teams with 3-point issues will see the same packed defenses as before.

The teams that will benefit are the Davidsons and Notre Dames of the world. Teams that can put 4 shooters on the floor will see things open up a lot more. On the other side of the ball, it's going to mean more value for the players teams are already looking for - long, athletic defenders who can close out on the deeper line or recover from further away.