Rules changes and advanced stats

[Mixed-Nutz]

It seems to me that less physical contact allowed will favor the more athletic players who should be more successful at getting to the basket without others pushing them off of it.  If you can't check or forearm a kid that is faster than you, that kid will get around you.  I would think this would open up all kinds of shooting for the teams with the elite talent and punish teams that go get kids that can physical up a game, Frank style.

If the rule is enforced, I think we see a benefit from the top tier teams.

That said, I think the non con did a pretty good job with the new rules until the CBE tourn.  The CBE refs let those games be played like any game in the last 5 yrs.  Even the commentator guy noted it.  He said that the refs were letting them play as long as no obvs advantage was gained from the contact, which is pretty much the exact excuse we have been hearing for years on why kids can push, forarm, check, swipe etc others without a call.

I thought the refs did a good job across the country until feast week then went back to their old habits. 

[MakeItRain]

It is definitely interesting that making it more important to have good shooters and athletes on a basketball team is viewed as a bad idea on this blog.

i don't think anyone said that, or even anything from which that logically follows.  i know i didn't, i said that decreasing the shot clock is a negative.  i'd like to go back to 45 or at least 40.

Yes, mir said that move would make shouting and athleticism more important. Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

I sure as hell didn't say that's a bad thing. Its bad if you're a fan of parity though.

[8manpick]

I don't know if its the intent, but Indiana scored nearly 1.2 points per possession last night and lost while Duke scored an incredible 1.52 PPP in their 94-74 win. That is either a game of a) incredible offensive skill enhanced by the new rule changes or b) a game in which neither team played very much defense. Probably a mix of the two I suppose.

I watched it, very little defense, especially on IUs part, and very good shooting on lots of open 3s. Also IU didn't rebound at all.

[michigancat]

It is definitely interesting that making it more important to have good shooters and athletes on a basketball team is viewed as a bad idea on this blog.

i don't think anyone said that, or even anything from which that logically follows.  i know i didn't, i said that decreasing the shot clock is a negative.  i'd like to go back to 45 or at least 40.

Yes, mir said that move would make shouting and athleticism more important. Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

I sure as hell didn't say that's a bad thing. Its bad if you're a fan of parity though.

OK, but I still don't think we'll see it affect parity much.

[sys]

Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

i like(d) the diversity of college bball (compared to the nba).  30 seconds and i think you're pushing up against where continuous offenses are ineffective (honestly, 35 seconds is probably pushing up against that point).  take away time to move the ball up court against pressure and a few seconds to run an iso after the offense fails and a defense only has to defend motion for about 15 seconds.  that seems too easy.  even just diversity in pace is something i enjoy.

30 seconds might lead to more zone d, though.  i suppose that would counteract a reduction in offensive diversity.


on top of everything else, college players just aren't that skilled.  i don't want to see more relatively bad bball players trying to score in isos or running two man sets.  gross.  the rules (not rule changes, i can't really detect a visible change) add to the unwatchability.  coaches have the choice of hoping one of their unskilled players can somehow score the ball in 30 seconds or just run guys at the rim until someone blows a whistle.  the less time there is to run an offense, the more shooting free throws is optimized as an offensive strategy.

[MakeItRain]

It is definitely interesting that making it more important to have good shooters and athletes on a basketball team is viewed as a bad idea on this blog.

i don't think anyone said that, or even anything from which that logically follows.  i know i didn't, i said that decreasing the shot clock is a negative.  i'd like to go back to 45 or at least 40.

Yes, mir said that move would make shouting and athleticism more important. Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

I sure as hell didn't say that's a bad thing. Its bad if you're a fan of parity though.

OK, but I still don't think we'll see it affect parity much.

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

[kso_FAN]

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

Yeah, 2 teams have won half the last 33 titles, just like men's college basketball.

A bunch more stuff showing how much less parity is in the women's game: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/5/8341687/uconn-women-basketball-final-four

[michigancat]

Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

i like(d) the diversity of college bball (compared to the nba).  30 seconds and i think you're pushing up against where continuous offenses are ineffective (honestly, 35 seconds is probably pushing up against that point).  take away time to move the ball up court against pressure and a few seconds to run an iso after the offense fails and a defense only has to defend motion for about 15 seconds.  that seems too easy.  even just diversity in pace is something i enjoy.

30 seconds might lead to more zone d, though.  i suppose that would counteract a reduction in offensive diversity.


on top of everything else, college players just aren't that skilled.  i don't want to see more relatively bad bball players trying to score in isos or running two man sets.  gross.  the rules (not rule changes, i can't really detect a visible change) add to the unwatchability.  coaches have the choice of hoping one of their unskilled players can somehow score the ball in 30 seconds or just run guys at the rim until someone blows a whistle.  the less time there is to run an offense, the more shooting free throws is optimized as an offensive strategy.

I guess I didn't watch basketball much before 45 seconds. I just know that when I've watched a slow paced team in today's game that I've never thought, "damn, if they could have run 10 more seconds of offense, they really could have gotten a nice shot." How much did the move from 45 to 35 affect the pace? Is this data handy? I googled, and didn't have much luck.

[sys]

i like 40 or 45, not unlimited.  playing keep away is more diversity than i need.

[kso_FAN]

Not necessarily about rules changes, but kenpom did an extensive study of a bunch of stats for offense and defense and their true impact and this is his summary as well as a link to each individual article about specific stats. Good stuff.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/offense_vs._defense_the_summary

[CHONGS]

There needs to be split (or two) in cbb.  Far too many teams...maybe a relegation system like in soccer?

[MakeItRain]

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

Yeah, 2 teams have won half the last 33 titles, just like men's college basketball.

A bunch more stuff showing how much less parity is in the women's game: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/5/8341687/uconn-women-basketball-final-four

I read that bolded part as you being sarcastic, am I wrong?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The officiating was one-sided as eff and embarrassingly inconsistent again tonight. This from one of the "better" crews.

[kso_FAN]

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

Yeah, 2 teams have won half the last 33 titles, just like men's college basketball.

A bunch more stuff showing how much less parity is in the women's game: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/5/8341687/uconn-women-basketball-final-four

I read that bolded part as you being sarcastic, am I wrong?

Very sarcastic.

[Cire]

Every year ncaa says they are cleaning things up, non con is foulorama, by tourney time it's back to murderball


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Every year ncaa says they are cleaning things up1 if non con is foulorama, by tourney time it's back to murderball


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There were like 7 fouls called in the 1st half, and like 35 in the 2nd half. They are forced to reverse to murderball because it's the only way to make the game moderately fair; take the carte blanche whistle from the soak head with money on the game.

At one point a uga player dribbled into the lane, jump stopped, pivoted, pushed Edwards with the ball and went up for an and-1 3 footer. Later in the game Mann drove to the block, jump stopped, pivoted forward, switched pivot foots and pivoted further forward, dished to a player who ran into a stationary cat for another and-1. These guys are a joke.

[pvegs]

It is definitely interesting that making it more important to have good shooters and athletes on a basketball team is viewed as a bad idea on this blog.

i don't think anyone said that, or even anything from which that logically follows.  i know i didn't, i said that decreasing the shot clock is a negative.  i'd like to go back to 45 or at least 40.

Yes, mir said that move would make shouting and athleticism more important. Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

I sure as hell didn't say that's a bad thing. Its bad if you're a fan of parity though.

OK, but I still don't think we'll see it affect parity much.

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

wut

[wetwillie]

It is definitely interesting that making it more important to have good shooters and athletes on a basketball team is viewed as a bad idea on this blog.

i don't think anyone said that, or even anything from which that logically follows.  i know i didn't, i said that decreasing the shot clock is a negative.  i'd like to go back to 45 or at least 40.

Yes, mir said that move would make shouting and athleticism more important. Why would you prefer a 45 second clock?

I sure as hell didn't say that's a bad thing. Its bad if you're a fan of parity though.

OK, but I still don't think we'll see it affect parity much.

That will be tough to measure as college basketball has far and away the least amount of parity of any team sport we watch in this country. It's hilarious to me that men's college basketball fans always make fun of women's college basketball and UCONN as if the men's game is any better.

wut

25 years of NCAA tournaments have produced 14 unique champions on the mens side and 10 on the Womens.  I suppose there is slightly more parity in mens but its not that far out of proportion. 

[MakeItRain]

Very sarcastic.

wut

25 years of NCAA tournaments have produced 14 unique champions on the mens side and 10 on the Womens.  I suppose there is slightly more parity in mens but its not that far out of proportion. 

Thanks wetwillie. I never would have pegged fan and pvegs as low information non readers, sad.

And if you stretch that out to the entire 34 years there's been a women's tournament the champions count is 14 women's teams and 19 men's.

I won't even make the super obvious argument about the women's game still being in its infancy when compared to the men's game therefore being disadvantaged by development. And the equally obvious argument about the men's game having a similar dynasty in its history.

[kso_FAN]

I won't even make the super obvious argument about the women's game still being in its infancy when compared to the men's game therefore being disadvantaged by development. And the equally obvious argument about the men's game having a similar dynasty in its history.

There are certainly a group of teams that dominate the men's game, I won't argue that. But the women's game has a much smaller group of dominant teams and UConn's run is just ridiculous, so it makes it seem even smaller. But I also think the article's points about upsets in the tournament point to much more parity in the men's game, even if that select group of teams is usually in the Final 4 and winning titles.

I think the difference in scholarships for women's basketball combined with the fact fewer girls are playing/developing in high school and younger is the reason why. The best teams in the women's game simply can keep more elite players and the pool of talent they can choose from is smaller.

[pvegs]

I won't even make the super obvious argument about the women's game still being in its infancy when compared to the men's game therefore being disadvantaged by development. And the equally obvious argument about the men's game having a similar dynasty in its history.

There are certainly a group of teams that dominate the men's game, I won't argue that. But the women's game has a much smaller group of dominant teams and UConn's run is just ridiculous, so it makes it seem even smaller. But I also think the article's points about upsets in the tournament point to much more parity in the men's game, even if that select group of teams is usually in the Final 4 and winning titles.

I think the difference in scholarships for women's basketball combined with the fact fewer girls are playing/developing in high school and younger is the reason why. The best teams in the women's game simply can keep more elite players and the pool of talent they can choose from is smaller.

MIR, I get some of the pts yr making abt women's bb and am def not an expert. But the broader context that men's college bb "has the least parity of any team sport we watch," is a ridiculous, unrprovable claim.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It takes a very special kind of ass hole to get people arguing about women's basketball

[MakeItRain]

I won't even make the super obvious argument about the women's game still being in its infancy when compared to the men's game therefore being disadvantaged by development. And the equally obvious argument about the men's game having a similar dynasty in its history.

There are certainly a group of teams that dominate the men's game, I won't argue that. But the women's game has a much smaller group of dominant teams and UConn's run is just ridiculous, so it makes it seem even smaller. But I also think the article's points about upsets in the tournament point to much more parity in the men's game, even if that select group of teams is usually in the Final 4 and winning titles.

I think the difference in scholarships for women's basketball combined with the fact fewer girls are playing/developing in high school and younger is the reason why. The best teams in the women's game simply can keep more elite players and the pool of talent they can choose from is smaller.

MIR, I get some of the pts yr making abt women's bb and am def not an expert. But the broader context that men's college bb "has the least parity of any team sport we watch," is a ridiculous, unrprovable claim.

Let's divorce wbb, from the argument, I didn't intend for you guys to get worked up about that.

But the claim about men's basketball and it's lack of parity is quite easy to prove actually. Take cbb, cfb, nba, nfl, mlb, nhl, hell throw mls in there and see which one has the lowest percentage of either champions or championship participants the last 20 years and you'll have your answer. I won't do it because it seems like the answer is obvious.

[kso_FAN]

Let's divorce wbb, from the argument, I didn't intend for you guys to get worked up about that.

But the claim about men's basketball and it's lack of parity is quite easy to prove actually. Take cbb, cfb, nba, nfl, mlb, nhl, hell throw mls in there and see which one has the lowest percentage of either champions or championship participants the last 20 years and you'll have your answer. I won't do it because it seems like the answer is obvious.

I won't disagree much with that. I'm not comparing parity from NCAA sports to pro sports though because I think there are too many differences.

Clearly men's basketball, football, and women's basketball (or any other NCAA sport) all have small pools of teams that are truly capable of winning titles and the history of each sport bares that out. I think the pool in women's basketball of title capable teams is slightly smaller, but its not a bunch. However, the lack of upsets in either the OOC or the tournament tells me the gap between those elite teams in women's basketball and the rest is much greater than the men's game. Football is probably somewhere in between men's and women's basketball as far as parity goes. Again, I won't deny that all NCAA sports have a group of haves and have nots when it comes to titles and those teams win titles consistently.

[michigancat]

looking back at how the rule changes affected play:

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/spiking_the_football_on_the_30_second_shot_clock