Makeover article

Sea Bass · #1 03-04-2015, 01:03 PM

Five years ago, Delany created a competition committee to monitor the game and offer suggestions, although it has no authority to impose change. The degree to which things have devolved was made to clear a few years ago when the group watched a video that was put together by the NCAA. The video showed extended segments of Final Four games dating back to 1954. Bilas, who serves on the panel and played in the 1986 Final Four when he was a senior at Duke, was amazed by what he saw. “When you see film from the old days, and sadly my era is the old days, the game looks so much cleaner,” he says. “We watched video of the 1985 final game between Villanova and Georgetown, and there was not one charge/block play. Not one. People talk about Georgetown intimidating people, but they intimidated people by blocking their shots, stealing the ball and dunking on them, not by bodying up a post man and bumping a cutter, or grabbing cutters so you’re disrupting the timing of an offense. The way guys play today, they’d foul out in the first five minutes.”

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...l-scoring-pace

Gazoo · #2 03-04-2015, 03:41 PM

I agree with 4 of the 5 suggestions. I really don't like shortening the shot clock.

I never used to watch the NBA but now that LeBron has a chance to win a championship for Cleveland (FINALLY says all the Cleveland fans of all sports) I do occasionally watch.

Here's what I see: the Cavs run 1 play. And honestly, they run that play half-heartedly about 50% of the time with no real intent to make it work. If that play does not generate any "good" look, they pass it to LeBron and 4 guys stand around watching him try to draw a foul while throwing some slop at the rim or chuck a 3.

Now, would that necessarily happen in college with 30 seconds? No, the egos are different and the coaches will drive more teamwork (we would hope). But, there will be more of it by definition than there is with a 35 second clock.

I like seeing teams who are willing to pass up on a "decent" shot in order to continue working for a "good" shot. When the 30 second shot clock arrives there will be more bad shots taken because. . . the attitude will be "that might be the best one you're going to get." Take it while you've got it, even if it's not a great shot.

Combine that with the Sabremetrics attitude that anything is a bad shot if it's not a 3 or a layup, and there will be a lot of chucked 3's at the buzzer and 4th-and-1 style drives to the hoop. Not a fan.

cj · #3 03-04-2015, 04:13 PM

If that is the case then wouldn't the women's games have that problem as they only have a 30 second clock.

MrFlyerFanatic · #4 03-04-2015, 04:46 PM

I look at UD's last 2 games.
Both opponents are known for defense. VCU uses athleticism to trap and take away passing lanes. URI hand checked, grabbed, and held to prevent guys from getting open.
How did UD win each game? Against VCU, it was all about ball control and making good passes. Against URI, it was a matter Scoochie fighting his way up the floor and then creating a lot of isolation with DP and KP in open areas against guys who were not as athletic. Exposed in isolation, a lot more fouls got called.

Gazoo · #5 03-04-2015, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by cj

If that is the case then wouldn't the women's games have that problem as they only have a 30 second clock.

I fail to see why people seem to loath to accept this simple truth: there will be MORE of it with a 30 second shot clock than there would OTHERWISE be with a 35 second shot clock. And, there would be EVEN MORE of it with a 24 second shot clock than with a 30 second shot clock.

Does that mean every possession down the court in a women's game (or the NBA) results in a terrible shot? No--who is saying that?? I'm saying there is more than there would otherwise be. So in answer to your question, "yes."

Does it happen once per 3:00? Once per half? Once per game? Once per season? Well that's where we can have an honest debate, but I think it's impossible to argue it's "never".

I think there's a natural limit right around the 30 second mark. Imagine 8 seconds to cross 1/2 court, 2 to get the PG into the right position to run the offense. That leaves 20 seconds. If you enter the ball on one side and read a screen that develops into another pass to the big man rolling, and it's not a good shot so it's kicked back to the guard, that's 5 seconds. Now we're at 15 remaining. In order to reverse the ball it takes another 2 seconds. Now you've got 13 seconds to get a shot so you're either:
1. Going to reverse the ball and try the same thing on the other side and risk having the ball in a big man's hands 15 feet from the basket with well under 10 seconds left, or

2. throw it out to the PG to run an isolation play with 13 seconds left to make sure you get a shot off. Yippee, another isolation play.

There's my concern. You basically take away 1 ball reversal before you give your team a chance to probe the defense. So, it's back to the high ball screen. In the NBA they just run the high ball screen on darn near every play and take the first shot created--if you double they kick to the opposite corner. 1 option out of the offense. Yawn.

Additionally, the defense gets off the hook. You've only got to keep up good team defense for about 20 seconds because after that it's the ever-present high ball screen. 1 extra ball rotation means 1 extra chance for the defense to make a mistake.

I think at 45 seconds there's more standing around--it's not linear. I just think the 35 second clock is the Goldilocks level.

xubrew · #6 03-04-2015, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

Five years ago, Delany created a competition committee to monitor the game and offer suggestions, although it has no authority to impose change. The degree to which things have devolved was made to clear a few years ago when the group watched a video that was put together by the NCAA. The video showed extended segments of Final Four games dating back to 1954. Bilas, who serves on the panel and played in the 1986 Final Four when he was a senior at Duke, was amazed by what he saw. “When you see film from the old days, and sadly my era is the old days, the game looks so much cleaner,” he says. “We watched video of the 1985 final game between Villanova and Georgetown, and there was not one charge/block play. Not one. People talk about Georgetown intimidating people, but they intimidated people by blocking their shots, stealing the ball and dunking on them, not by bodying up a post man and bumping a cutter, or grabbing cutters so you’re disrupting the timing of an offense. The way guys play today, they’d foul out in the first five minutes.”

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...l-scoring-pace

I completely agree with this.

Going in to last year, I really think they had the right idea. They were going to start calling fouls and officiating the game the way it would have been back in the "old days" when the game really was better.

I don't know if anyone fouled out in five minutes, but TONS of fouls were called. Everyone went crazy. I get that, because freethrow parades are not fun to watch or to play in, but had they just stuck with it I think it would have made the game better. We did have some great games in the middle of last season.

But, those who whined and whined about all the fouls, which to be fair was pretty much everyone, ended up winning out and they started to dial it back.

It would have sucked in the short run, but I really wish the NCAA would have stuck to its guns. "I know there are a lot of fouls, but we don't care. The refs don't need to stop calling the fouls. The players need to stop fouling."

Eventually, they would have adjusted.

If you watch the NCAA Tournament games from the 1980s and in to the 1990s, Jay Bilas is right. Not even Big Bad Georgetown played nearly as physical as the game is played today, and you did have a lot more fluidity on offense. It was more skill and finesse than it was 'bumping and grabbing the cutters.' Yeah, players today would foul out in five minutes, and maybe that's not a bad thing. As bad as it would suck, I think that's what needs to be done and think that if they'd stuck with it last year the game would be MUCH better this year.

AC91 · #7 03-04-2015, 06:28 PM

it was a game of chicken between the coaches and the NCAA...and the coaches won. And I read Bilas' comments, but last night during the UK game he was calling some awfully physical play good no fouls or quetioning why they would be a foul. Man, I Know Georgia was spent in the last 5 minutes, but they didn't really stand a chance when UK turned it up at the end. UK was so physical when they needed to be.

SeasonTicketFan · #8 03-04-2015, 06:49 PM

In an interview Archie advocating less physical contact on defense rather than shortening the shot clock. He stated that the NBA does not allow the type of defense that is now played at the college level.

I agree with XuBrew. In the short term, the game would have been miserable to watch, but players don't like to foul out.

Both URI and VCI were hand checking plus. I really don't like hand checking because a stronger defender can push you out of your offensive lane. I understand the defender wanting to place a hand on the opponent to better track, but too often a hand check is to push a moving player out of their determined path. It becomes the equivalent of football defenders hand checking a wide receiver beyond the 5 yards down field.

jack72 · #9 03-04-2015, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by cj

If that is the case then wouldn't the women's games have that problem as they only have a 30 second clock.

It is a problem in the women's game. There are more bad shots and less passing. The reality is, the less time, the less passing and the more dribble drive and poor shots.

As we know the NBA plays selective defense, so a short shot clock somewhat works. Put a shorter clock in for teams like UD's men and it turns up the need to play great defense, and the ability to do so. For teams like Duke, who have great offensive athletes and hate defense, it would improve their scoring, but not for most teams. Think about KY. Hard to score on them now.

xubrew · #10 03-04-2015, 07:56 PM

I agree that shortening the shot clock would do nothing. I could live with it at thirty, but I prefer it at 35.

Scoring is down, and it's not because of the shot clock. For much of the 80s there was no shot clock, yet they averaged more points.

I'm not suggesting they get rid of it or lengthen it. I'm just saying that the shot clock isn't the problem. It's the overly physical play. Crack down on it the way they started to last year, and after five or six weeks of eye gouging basketball with a ton of fouls, the players will adjust and the game will be a lot better. They had the right idea, and it WAS working, as we started to see some really good games last year. They just backed off of it.

Gazoo · #11 03-04-2015, 08:36 PM

If you've watched UD this year, we have adjusted to it by default. We can't afford anyone in foul trouble so we don't grab much, challenge too many shots, etc.