goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Jerome Tang Coaches Kansas State Basketball => Topic started by: kso_FAN on February 06, 2014, 01:59:51 PM
-
I was looking at kenpom's averages for each season and noticed a spike in efficiency/ppp and a drop in turnovers (among other things). I was curious to see the trends (I put a chart somewhere last year, but couldn't find it) so I put together a graphic to show the changes over the last 10 seasons. It would seem the rules changes this year have made a difference, though its probably too early (still around 1/3 of the season still to be played) to make any type of statistical declaration. Still, all of the numbers except OR% have significant spikes this year compared to the last 9 seasons.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg845%2F1843%2Ffwbl.png&hash=91bb1e1f57fa1a8bb48578fb63028fef8d6a036e)
-
FTR :barf:
what a relatively, statiscally horrible time to be a basketball spectator
-
fantastic post, _fan.
-
My "eye test" really didn't notice a major change in the way the game was being played, so this is really interesting.
-
Here are the numbers from Big 12 games only; we're only halfway through the Big 12 schedule, so a lot can change.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg268%2F6054%2Fm048.png&hash=e4777f7d56ecdb9759e7e966188d583205b4ca8f)
-
that could explain why I haven't noticed. It would be difficult (impossible) to pick up on a 3.3% increase in FTR from watching alone.
-
that could explain why I haven't noticed. It would be difficult (impossible) to pick up on a 3.3% increase in FTR from watching alone.
Pace though.
-
that could explain why I haven't noticed. It would be difficult (impossible) to pick up on a 3.3% increase in FTR from watching alone.
Pace though.
also hard to notice with your eye. 1-2 extra possessions per half?
-
I found most interesting comparing your two figures. Big 12 is greater than national average in PPP, FTR, and Pace.
-
I found most interesting comparing your two figures. Big 12 is greater than national average in PPP, FTR, and Pace.
True. Keep in mind national average includes all the mid and low majors (and lots of bad basketball).
-
I found most interesting comparing your two figures. Big 12 is greater than national average in PPP, FTR, and Pace.
True. Keep in mind national average includes all the mid and low majors (and lots of bad basketball).
but the bad basketball generally plays each other in conference, and when high majors play low majors the averages would be pretty close to two high majors playing. Probably.
-
I found most interesting comparing your two figures. Big 12 is greater than national average in PPP, FTR, and Pace.
True. Keep in mind national average includes all the mid and low majors (and lots of bad basketball).
but the bad basketball generally plays each other in conference, and when high majors play low majors the averages would be pretty close to two high majors playing. Probably.
True.
I just picked the Southland Conference (#27 conference out of 33 on kenpom) at random and calculated their averages for this year.
PPP = 1.06 Pace = 68.4 eFG% = 50.5 TO% = 19.2 OR% = 32.6 FTR = 47.1
Also, this blog from kenpom is interesting: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/what_makes_defenses_slow
-
I took a look at FTR earlier in the season. Woof.
-
They're going to readjust some of the interpretations of these rules in the off-season. I have heard countless coaches; Boeheim, Coach K, Izzo, oscar, Frank, Barnes, etc. complain about the liberties that ball handlers have and they're right.
-
Nobody cares what frank thinks (nationally) anymore. Hopefully the 5% can carry the wait for a good defending K-State team that gets picked on, on the road.
-
Nobody cares what frank thinks (nationally) anymore.
Pretty telling that you picked his name out of that list and made that very irrelevant observation.
-
Nobody cares what frank thinks (nationally) anymore.
Pretty telling that you picked his name out of that list and made that very irrelevant observation.
Well, do they? Don't bunch his name in with that cast if you want credibility for your post.
-
Nobody cares what frank thinks (nationally) anymore.
Pretty telling that you picked his name out of that list and made that very irrelevant observation.
Well, do they? Don't bunch his name in with that cast if you want credibility for your post.
:ROFL: can you read? I said that's a list of coaches I heard complaining about that issue. You think oscar is more nationally relevant than Martin? Pro tip, he isn't, neither is Rick Barnes. If you know who the basketball coach at UT is you are almost certain to know who Frank Martin and oscar Weber are. I'm sure people who took the time to open this topic would much rather read about the actual topic again. You can take the old Frank Martin bs and calling people butthurt and dumbass to any of the several dozen other topics you've done that in.
-
I mean... wtf?
-
The rules on contact absolutely must be addressed. I get the intent to clean up physical play/hand checks on the perimeter, but when a ball handler can seemingly pick any point in a game and just dribble into a defender and draw a foul, the rule is being badly misapplied.
-
My point was, only half those names have any pull on what the NCAA might think about the new changes.
-
My point was, only half those names have any pull on what the NCAA might think about the new changes.
The rules committee is made up of coaches from all three divisions, wacky. My goodness. Random fans perception of how relevant certain coaches are has nothing to do with rules changes.
-
poor wackydax.
-
Hello NCAA basketball people (use advanced stats tho).
David Teel ?@DavidTeelatDP 11m
NCAA releases in-season stat trends for hoops. Scoring at 71.68 ppg, which would be highest since 1995-96. FG, 3PT, FT %s up from '13.
Blair Kerkhoff ?@BlairKerkhoff 14m
Hoops stats from NCAA: Teams averaging 71.68 ppg, Would be highest since 96. Scoring, fouls, shooting %s up. Turnovers down over last yr
-
_Fan, isn't Texas' pace like way up from last year? and maybe ISU's too, I don't really recall. anyways, what im getting at is, if you take out Texas from the Big 12 this year is the pace about the same? guess you could take them out from last year if you really wanted to find out if they are the big difference.
EDIT: maybe its OU too? idk. can you just shed some light on whats making the pace be so much higher? maybe post last years pace side by side this years and ill figure it out!
-
Roughly 1/5 of the way into the new shot clock era, and its no surprise that pace is the main impact. With about 15% less shot clock to work with, the game is roughly 6% faster than average of the last 10 years.
Scoring, shooting, and FT rate are slightly higher than they were trending when rules changes came in 2014, but TO rate and Oboarding seem to be following the same decline. The first half of 2014 when the game was definitely called different alters a lot of the numbers from that year, but pretty much since then the game has been officiated similar to how it was before.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2F12-2-15-NCAA-Stats.png&hash=2e9af6835980821ce494b00277f0ec5a46fbc42f)
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds. The average over the last 5 years is 18.1 seconds with the longest at 18.4 seconds per last season.
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds. The average over the last 5 years is 18.1 seconds with the longest at 18.4 seconds per last season.
Pace seems to be the only really significant change. Officials haven't really done a great job of "cleaning up the game", but I don't think we should expect much from them anyway. System is kinda of broken.
-
The rules on contact absolutely must be addressed. I get the intent to clean up physical play/hand checks on the perimeter, but when a ball handler can seemingly pick any point in a game and just dribble into a defender and draw a foul, the rule is being badly misapplied.
This is what you get when you try to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The physical play really didn't need cleaned up.
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds.
gross. they're ruining college bball.
-
better for the nba
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds.
gross. they're ruining college bball.
Certainly creates space between college basketball's upper class and everyone else.
-
Certainly creates space between college basketball's upper class and everyone else.
making another nba, except with unevenly distributed & mostly shitty players.
-
the nba owns college ball and will do everything it can to make its (the NBA's) product as strong as it can be
-
The main thing I've noticed from watching games is that the officiating is wildly inconsistent and probably the worst it's ever been. I have no idea what is and is not a foul anymore. It literally varies by the second.
I know it's not en vogue to trash the refs in goEtardland, but it's rough ridin' embarrassing how bad these stooges doing these games are. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were serial alcohol and drug abuse, and wagering on games. Two of the guys who regularly do our games look like fat greasy italian Rudolph the red nosed reindeers their rough ridin' cirrhosis is so bad.
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds.
gross. they're ruining college bball.
Certainly creates space between college basketball's upper class and everyone else.
since this is an advanced stats thread, is there any statistical evidence that supports this?
-
The main thing I've noticed from watching games is that the officiating is wildly inconsistent and probably the worst it's ever been. I have no idea what is and is not a foul anymore. It literally varies by the second.
I know it's not en vogue to trash the refs in goEtardland, but it's rough ridin' embarrassing how bad these stooges doing these games are. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were serial alcohol and drug abuse, and wagering on games. Two of the guys who regularly do our games look like fat greasy italian Rudolph the red nosed reindeers their rough ridin' cirrhosis is so bad.
This fresh take brought to you by Subway. Subway, eat fresh.
-
Also, average possession length this year is down to 17.0 seconds.
gross. they're ruining college bball.
Certainly creates space between college basketball's upper class and everyone else.
since this is an advanced stats thread, is there any statistical evidence that supports this?
Sure, the statistical evidence is that the length of possessions are down which means the number of possessions are up. More possessions favor better athletes and shot makers. The end.
-
that wasn't very advanced at all
-
Do I need advanced stats to prove that lighter people are more prone to sunburn?
-
I'm going to guess that scoring margin will increase, generally accepted as common sense when scoring increases.
-
I'm going to guess that scoring margin will increase, generally accepted as common sense when scoring increases.
Yes. But will that truly lead to less parity? I'm not convinced 1 fewer second per possession will make much of an impact.
-
I'm going to guess that scoring margin will increase, generally accepted as common sense when scoring increases.
Yes. But will that truly lead to less parity? I'm not convinced 1 fewer second per possession will make much of an impact.
If the NCAA is for real about making the game less physical, it should support more skilled/experienced/IQ players over more athletic players thus increasing parity. We have seen Virginia lose to George Washington, UNC lose to UNI and Miami lose to Northeastern. But that has a sample size problem.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
This makes so much sense, too bad know one the matters can figure it out. Adds more strategy, handicaps defenses.
-
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 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.
-
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?
Yeah, I don't see much difference. If teams don't get an easy quick basket in transition, coaches just have 5 less seconds now to run some offense before they call a ball screen or run a shooter through a stagger for a shot in the last 5 seconds of the shot clock.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
i like 40 or 45, not unlimited. playing keep away is more diversity than i need.
-
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
-
There needs to be split (or two) in cbb. Far too many teams...maybe a relegation system like in soccer?
-
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?
-
The officiating was one-sided as eff and embarrassingly inconsistent again tonight. This from one of the "better" crews.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It takes a very special kind of ass hole to get people arguing about women's basketball
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-no-1-overall-seed-in-the-ncaa-tournament-just-got-a-huge-reward/
Even though the NCAA Tournament is eight months away, we've got a hefty update on some upcoming changes.
One twist coming next season: The No. 1 overall seed will be able to choose the location of its first two games of the tournament. So if that team is Duke, or Kentucky, or Kansas, or whichever school gets put atop the 1-68 seed list, that program will get to pick where it plays its first and second-round games.
-
So those bastards will chose AFH, such bullshit!
-
Since the pod thing happened does the #1 ever not play where they wanted to anyway?
-
I think they assign them to the closest region that's next to them, but maybe it's like Kentucky or something, that just wants to ball out in Miami and hang with the ladies. :dunno:
-
Maybe. Doesn't seem like a big deal either way.
-
Letting the 1 pick their regional would be more exciting.
-
I don't think it makes much difference. Have you ever seen KU play not in Tulsa or Kansas City first round? Or somewhere close? Now if they get to pick after the rest of teams are put into the bracket, that would mean something.
-
Letting ku make this type of decision is not good for ku. They will inevitably fail, then be unable to blame some conspiracy at which time they will consume themselves.
-
Since the pod thing happened does the #1 ever not play where they wanted to anyway?
I recall whining a few years ago when KU had to play in Detroit instead of Indy or someplace.