|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 9, 2015 8:37:46 GMT -5
I hope those changes are not made at all.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 9, 2015 8:55:10 GMT -5
I hope those changes are not made at all. Why not? Don't you want to see the game played at a faster pace, have more possessions? Wouldn't you like to see more attempts at blocked shots as opposed to garbage charge calls?
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by drquigley on Feb 9, 2015 10:04:50 GMT -5
Are we watching the same sport? The problem with college bball isn't the shot clock or how games are being managed by officials. It's the same problem that baseball is having and eventually hockey will have. ITS GREED! Money is made via advertising. Advertising requires breaks in the action. Breaks in the action require timeouts. So the game slows down and becomes horrible, almost painful to watch, while TV breaks for commercials. If you're serious about improving flow and speed of the game just limit timeouts. maybe in exchange for fewer commercial breaks they would go for longer timeouts to allow more advertising in return for fewer timeouts. But this is the elephant in the room. I saw a TV replay of a baseball game in 1954. Amazing how little time was spent between innings on commercials. If they went back to that system today baseball games would easily be 15-20 minutes quicker.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 9, 2015 10:49:35 GMT -5
I hope those changes are not made at all. Why not? Don't you want to see the game played at a faster pace, have more possessions? Wouldn't you like to see more attempts at blocked shots as opposed to garbage charge calls? I think that the rules and shot clock are fine the way they are now. In fact, a shorter clock would not benefit the Hoyas, in my opinion. The rules just need to be enforced correctly. Every touch ain't a foul. If the defender is moving in a direction other than straight back, it is a block- even if the offensive player was "out of control" and had his shoulder lowered; he just can't have his arm extended. Just enforce the darn rules correctly and stop trying to make changes that are unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 9, 2015 10:54:36 GMT -5
I think a 30 second shot clock is ideal - it maintains a difference with the NBA (which is warranted, given the NBA's much higher skill level, particularly in ball handling), yet it makes the game go a little bit faster, which isn't a bad thing.
There's no reason why this would necessarily hurt the Hoyas more than any other team. Our recent stagnant offense notwithstanding, our offense isn't built to go to 5 seconds before a shot goes up.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 9, 2015 12:22:29 GMT -5
Why not? Don't you want to see the game played at a faster pace, have more possessions? Wouldn't you like to see more attempts at blocked shots as opposed to garbage charge calls? I think that the rules and shot clock are fine the way they are now. In fact, a shorter clock would not benefit the Hoyas, in my opinion. The rules just need to be enforced correctly. Every touch ain't a foul. If the defender is moving in a direction other than straight back, it is a block- even if the offensive player was "out of control" and had his shoulder lowered; he just can't have his arm extended. Just enforce the darn rules correctly and stop trying to make changes that are unnecessary. I don't agree with either of your points.. Any rule change that increases possessions and forces pace of play is good by me.. A defender should not have to give ground to play good defense, they should be allowed to beat an opponent to a spot especially if the offensive guy is out of control.. If they can slide their feet laterally faster than the person they're covering they shouldn't be penalized for it.. The larger restricted area is really meant to stop help defenders from camping close to the basket to take charges, now they'll be forced to contest shots closer in..
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 9, 2015 15:53:27 GMT -5
If they can slide their feet and beat the offensive player to the position, it should be a charge. If they are still moving, it is a block, even if the offensive player is out of control. That simply means that the defender took a bad angle and tried to beat the man to the wrong spot. The offensive player is allowed to make an aggressive move to the hoop with his momentum and body weight going hard to the basket, and the defender must react to that in time and with good position. Often, the means that the defender has to play farther off the ball than he wants to, but that is reality. If there is contact with the offensive player moving with the ball, it is a defensive foul unless the defender has set position or the offensive player is extending his arm. Period.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 12, 2015 23:21:07 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12315061/espn-poll-shows-college-basketball-coaches-want-30-second-shot-clock"I think we should all have a 24-second shot," Villanova coach Jay Wright told ESPN. "Consistent. It's NBA and international. We should all learn to play the game the same way. The game is still the game. Everything you do to the game, everyone's adjusted."
We are only country that doesn't have 24 seconds," Central Florida assistant Tim Thomas added. "There are [15-year-olds] in FIBA competition all over the world that are able to play with a 24-second shot clock. But we can't?"Exactly right..
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 13, 2015 5:49:13 GMT -5
PLEASE NO!!!
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,464
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2015 8:10:53 GMT -5
If there is contact with the offensive player moving with the ball, it is a defensive foul unless the defender has set position or the offensive player is extending his arm. Period. The problem is most times this is not called. Yogi Ferrell warded off with his elbow/forearm virtually every time he had the ball and only 1 or 2 were called. Nova guards do it every play (when they're not kicking their legs out and Italian soccer player flopping to draw a foul that is).
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 13, 2015 9:54:08 GMT -5
I agree, Dan. The sad thing is that the extended forearm often is not called, but the lowered shoulder, which is NOT an offensive foul, often is called. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by daymondmyles on Feb 13, 2015 13:48:37 GMT -5
Ban zone
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Feb 13, 2015 13:52:14 GMT -5
Not until Josh graduates.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,923
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 13, 2015 14:08:58 GMT -5
I would love to see the college game's pace and scoring improved, however, there are limitations. The biggest issue being the quality of refs is not going to improve so putting more burden on them to "clean up" the game would backfire. That is why I am in favor of a 30 second shot clock and a bigger restricted area. These are changes that are simple to implement for the refs and force more possessions.
I would also take away a timeout (from 5 to 4) with any timeout called when a TV timeout is due automatically becoming the full TV timeout. These back to back timeouts are brutal. Coaches strategically use timeouts knowing they are going to get another at the next dead ball. Great for coaches, horrendous for fans. I can almost always count on my kids, and wife, losing interest in the game at that exact moment.
Also, with timeouts I am definitely not in favor of the ball advancing to half-court on a timeout like the NBA. That provides too much reward to the team that is losing. People in the NBA say it is more exciting, because you are never out of it, but if you have been the worse team for the first 39.5 minutes, you need to earn it.
I initially like the idea of banning zone, but the exotic defenses is what brings some character to the game. Also the little guys need as many options as possible to compete with the better teams. Lower D1 schools are clearly not on the same competitive level as the Top 50 programs. Those innovations are what keep the game evolving.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 13, 2015 15:04:42 GMT -5
I guess it would be kinda interesting watching NCAA refs enforce illegal defense. I mean, they have almost no chance of enforcing that rule properly or consistently.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 13, 2015 16:59:28 GMT -5
I still think basketball should get rid of free throws and go to a power play system. If you foul, you leave the court until a change of possession. The 5 on 4s would lead to a lot of wide open threes and dunks.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Feb 13, 2015 17:05:49 GMT -5
From an in-game perspective, I'm not sure why there is always such a push to improve scoring in order to make the game more exciting. Increased scoring does not always equate to more exciting. I could go off on a wild tangent here, but I will just say that the lack of emphasis on teaching fundamentals in youth basketball all the way up to the college level is a large reason why you don't see the level of scoring that people who are in favor of rule changes to promote scoring ultimately want.
As far as pace of play is concerned, extra fouls slow down the game and make it harder for teams to get into an offensive rhythm. Sure, teams are shooting more FTs across the board, but is that really helpful when FT percentages are down across the board? I would even go as far as to say when both teams experience foul trouble, it's harder to score more when your best players are riding the bench.
I would absolutely be for reducing stoppages of play. I understand TV and advertising money loom large here, but cutting out even one timeout or making sure each timeout don't last longer than 2 minutes would help a ton.
No more lengthy reviews for what might have been a flagrant 30 seconds ago that the refs initially missed but one coach demanded a review for after the fact. If they didn't catch it the first time and it didn't look egregious enough in real time, then play on. If a kid gets caught making a dirty/unsafe play that was missed by the crew, then suspend the kid after the game is over. Don't spend 10 minutes during the game looking at 65 different angles just to realize it's just a common foul.
And lastly, cut out the unofficial timeouts that teams are given when a guy fouls out. You got 15 seconds to sub and that's it. No huddling.
|
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Feb 14, 2015 12:26:37 GMT -5
Did anyone else catch this line? "The NCAA said it will begin tracking the length of games next year, as it does in football." Huh? I can get the length of just about every game played from the boxscores. Or, the NCAA could just have the networks get an intern to go into their video vaults for a day or two and tell them how long all their games are.
Completely agree about reducing the number and lengths of timeouts and other game stoppages. I particularly like the no live-ball TO suggestion in the article. I had never thought of that.
One other I would like to add to the list is that if you are in the bonus you could choose to shoot the one-and-one, or take the ball out of bounds. It would speed up the endgame situation by eliminating as many as three trips to the FT line, and also potentially force some interesting coaching decisions.
Some other pet peeves that are on my mind from recent Hoya games: - The leg kick by a jump-shooter needs to be properly enforced as the offensive foul that it is. It is a trip plain and simple. - The above the shoulder contact rules need to be completely overhauled. You have situations where a player has established possession and position, turns around in his own space, and gets called for a flagrant foul because the defender is sticking his head in a dangerous space. If the defender had hit the player's elbow with his hand, it would be a foul on the defender, but because he fouled the player with his chin, it's a flagrant. If safety is the true concern here, then penalize the player who is playing unsafely - in this case the defender - and not the offensive player who did nothing dangerous. And on a related note - technicals and or ejections for players who flop or fake head contact (I am looking at you Angel Delgado) - Zero-tolerance policy for coaches on the court. Technical for the first violation, ejection for the second.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 27, 2015 11:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Mar 4, 2015 13:49:33 GMT -5
Good read from Seth Davis: www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/26/hoop-thoughts-college-basketball-scoring-paceHis rule changes: 1. The shot clock should be shortened to 30 seconds. 2. The arc under the basket should be extended to four feet. 3. The lane should be wider. 4. The three-point line should be deeper. 5. There should be fewer time outs.I found the part on the makeup of the rules committee (mostly coaches, mostly not high-major) interesting: Start with the makeup of the rules committee. There are 12 members, but three spots are given to Division II schools and another three to Division III schools. That’s because the rulebook applies to all three divisions. Of the six seats allocated for Division I, five are currently occupied by men who work at the mid-major level... Marinate on that for a moment: Just one out of the 12 men on the rules committee works for a school in a Power Five conference
...
Proposals to change the lines on the court have met resistance partly because the lower divisions were wary of spending the money. “When we first talked about putting in the arc, the D-II and the D-III guys were saying, ‘Damn, that’s expensive.’ That was holding stuff up,” says Notre Dame coach Mike Brey, who served on the committee from 2006-10 and was chairman in his final year
...
However, there’s a broader question that needs to be addressed. Why are coaches even on the rules committee in the first place? They are always going to be more concerned with their competitive interests than the overall state of the game.
The undue influence is reflected in the response to the annual rules survey. The committee polls five groups: commissioners, referee coordinators, referees, media, and coaches. Last year, when the survey asked whether the number of time outs should be reduced, a strong majority of all the groups agreed that they should—except for coaches, of whom 74% disagreed. Coaches were also the only group that objected to the suggestion that only players should be allowed to call time out. On both questions, the coaches got their way.
|
|