NCAA D1 Rule Changes for 2019-2020

[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/prod...loads/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

[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.