2014-15 college basketball

[michigancat]

The game is fine, although it would be nice to shorten the short clock and take away a few timeouts.

[kso_FAN]

The game is fine, although it would be nice to shorten the short clock and take away a few timeouts.

Pretty much. I am a bit surprised how much pace has dropped this year.

[Mixed-Nutz]

The game is fine, although it would be nice to shorten the short clock and take away a few timeouts.

Pretty much. I am a bit surprised how much pace has dropped this year.

I believe it has a lot to do with more teams running zone defense.

[j rake]

Pretty much. I am a bit surprised how much pace has dropped this year.

kenpom's theory (which i don't entirely agree with):

More structured offenses + physical defenses placing priority on preventing transition.

[kso_FAN]

Pretty much. I am a bit surprised how much pace has dropped this year.

kenpom's theory (which i don't entirely agree with):

More structured offenses + physical defenses placing priority on preventing transition.

Heh, pretty much my theory. And I hadn't read that from kp.

[nicname]

Take the last two points about physical half-court defense and more structured offense, then add going away from emphasizing block/ charge calls, which _Fan mentioned and you're asking for a slower game.

It's really a shame that they couldn't just stick with the rules emphasis from a couple of years ago for more than a season. You have to give incentive for most teams to play uptempo.

I agree that there are too many timeouts, but I don't see how you can get rid of any without hurting advertising revenue. Increase halftime to 25 minutes?

Things I'd like to see —  3 timeouts per team, per half, which can only be called by players on the floor. No media timeouts. Players would be allowed to call timeout in a save-the-ball situation. In said situation, coaches are allowed to turn one of the full timeouts into two 30-second timeouts.

Defense - Emphasis on hand-checking and contact with the offensive player. Emphasis on help-defense block/ charge calls. Award defensive tie-ups with the ball out of bounds with no effect on the possession arrow.

It's not groundbreaking stuff, and it's all been mentioned before. I'd rather see incentive for quicker, more open play, than forcing it on teams with a shorter shot clock and other things.

I'm iffy on extending the 3-point line to NBA range, but it might open up the mid-range game and create better spacing.

[star seed 7]

def need less timeouts

[j rake]

The game is fine, although it would be nice to shorten the short clock and take away a few timeouts.

there are lots of little things that can be done to help make the game more watchable...

#1 - i agree with you on timeouts. it's bad enough that there's four forced media timeouts per half, but when you've got two coaches calling a combined six timeouts - including full timeouts - in the final minutes, the game ends up having no flow. on top of that, instant replay on questionable calls inside of two minutes has gotten out of hand. seems like the refs go to the monitor for almost everything anymore.

#2 - use a universal ball. most teams use nike, many teams use wilson, some use adidas, some use under armour. a handful of teams use The Rock ball. wisconsin is the lone team to use a sterling brand ball. andre hollins complained earlier this year that he thought nebraska's adidas balls were hard to shoot. tim miles was asked if brand of ball matters. he said his colorado state teams used spalding balls, which almost no other team used, and thought it made a big difference. "It was a unique ball, and it was hard for our guys to get used to it when we started with it," Miles said. "But we were one of the best offensive teams in the country, so it was doing well for us. But I also think it messed with our opponent, no question about it."

#3 - adjust the standard for rim tightness. the nba's scoring was down several years ago (i believe prior to the 2009-10 season), and one thing they did was bring in a new rim manufacturer. the rim broke away from the front and the sides, as compared to just the front. scoring did rise that year (it can't be entirely attributed to the rims), but i recall players commenting that they were far more forgiving.

#4 - use a slightly smaller basketball. easier to control, easier to shoot (more room), easier to dunk.

#5 - expanding the lane, implementing defensive 3 seconds (or 5 seconds) would also help. the WNBA did this last year with some success.

shortening the shot clock seems to be everyone's favorite option. i don't think a 30 second clock would be a big deal, but a 24-second clock would ruin the game and make an overwhelming majority of games unwatchable.

[michigancat]

shortening the shot clock seems to be everyone's favorite option. i don't think a 30 second clock would be a big deal, but a 24-second clock would ruin the game and make an overwhelming majority of games unwatchable.

Teams would adjust to a 24 second clock just fine.

[TownieCat]

One suggested fix for the timeout situation that I really like is counting team called TOs as the media TO when the occur when a media TO could be. Ex.: If a team calls a TO at 7:57 that counts as the under 8 TO.

[j rake]

shortening the shot clock seems to be everyone's favorite option. i don't think a 30 second clock would be a big deal, but a 24-second clock would ruin the game and make an overwhelming majority of games unwatchable.

Teams would adjust to a 24 second clock just fine.

i'm saying games would be 'unwatchable' because the overwhelming majority of them (certainly in non-con play) would be epic blowouts. inferior teams rely on shortening the game and execution (i.e., running great offense) when up against the ku and kentuckys of the world. if forced to play a 24-second game, big upsets will be almost extinct, thus removing much of the game's appeal to the casual fan, certainly in march.

[kso_FAN]

j rake's point on scouting is very legit. Teams know more about opponents and players and tendencies than ever before, which also leads to coaches wanting more control.

[michigancat]

shortening the shot clock seems to be everyone's favorite option. i don't think a 30 second clock would be a big deal, but a 24-second clock would ruin the game and make an overwhelming majority of games unwatchable.

Teams would adjust to a 24 second clock just fine.

i'm saying games would be 'unwatchable' because the overwhelming majority of them (certainly in non-con play) would be epic blowouts. inferior teams rely on shortening the game and execution (i.e., running great offense) when up against the ku and kentuckys of the world. if forced to play a 24-second game, big upsets will be almost extinct, thus removing much of the game's appeal to the casual fan, certainly in march.

There would still be plenty of upsets.

[michigancat]

j rake's point on scouting is very legit. Teams know more about opponents and players and tendencies than ever before, which also leads to coaches wanting more control.

A smart person (me) would counter this by doing the exact opposite and teach players how to make quality decisions and plays on the fly.

[nicname]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

[michigancat]

xx

[j rake]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

 

[nicname]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

[j rake]

There would still be plenty of upsets.

the number would go down significantly. i'd guess that a theoretical 10 extra possessions per game (from 35 second clock to 24 second clock) would lead to point spreads of at least three more points in games involving an athletic team, such as kentucky, against an execution team, such as northern iowa.

if the NBA switched to a 35-second clock, rather than the current 24-second clock, you'd see more parity and far more upsets on a nightly basis.

[j rake]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

again, it's scouting. it's analytics. it's the athletic nature of the game, with players being bigger and stronger now than ever before. it's the officiating. it's coaching.

most basketball people bemoan the "death of the mid-range jumper." offensive players have been told that there are two great shots: a 3-point shot, or a shot at the rim. everything in between, and particularly shots just inside the 3-point line, are typically not desired shots. guess what defenses are taught? do everything possible to eliminate paint entry (especially with the dribble), and take away the 3-point shot. this naturally slows things down.

but the scouting can't be understated.

if you read arkansas preview articles from the opposing team's perspective, it's the same in every paper every week. "we can't get into a running game with them. we have to control the ball, we can't get careless, we can't let them speed us up."

if you read virginia preview articles from the opposing team, it's "we've got to beat them down the floor, we've got to try to get easy transition baskets, we've got to find a way to score on them without their defense getting set."

this, of course, rarely works.

believe it or not, there are plenty of super fast games in today's modern basketball. arkansas has played three 80-plus tempo games this year (including one in league play). auburn hilariously tried to push pace against kentucky (81 possessions) and failed miserably, losing by 35. and there have been dozens of other games in the 80s across the country, in league and out of league. but for most teams, particularly with travel and two-games-in-three-days stretches, it doesn't make much sense.

[MakeItRain]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

[nicname]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

If a coach decides that his team is going to play fast, it doesn't seem that he'd do it without thinking it would give his team a better shot to win. Yes, more teams did it, which leads one to believe there were things about the game then that prompted more coaches to feel that playing fast gave them an edge, or that necessitated playing faster.

[MakeItRain]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

If a coach decides that his team is going to play fast, it doesn't seem that he'd do it without thinking it would give his team a better shot to win. Yes, more teams did it, which leads one to believe there were things about the game then that prompted more coaches to feel that playing fast gave them an edge, or that necessitated playing faster.

You ignored the second sentence. Playing fast, slow, or medium does not give you any tactical advantage on its own. I think some teams are better equipped for playing faster than others but that has no bearing on your ability to stop your opponent from running their stuff.

[j rake]

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

on some level it was. i can remember seeing a documentary on LMU where opposing coaches were like, "Man, we were not ready for THAT kind of speed. We could not simulate that. It caught us off guard. We weren't ready." also, these up tempo teams were typically deep teams, and had great endurance. if you were matched up against an opponent with minimal depth, you could wear them out and run them into submission.

by the way, nolan richardson's final season was in 2002. his arkansas team played at a 73 tempo on the season, and a 70 tempo in league. six SEC opponents forced him into games of 65 possessions or less. mike anderson, whose style is the same, is playing at a 70 tempo (69 in league). not a tremendous difference.

[nicname]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

If a coach decides that his team is going to play fast, it doesn't seem that he'd do it without thinking it would give his team a better shot to win. Yes, more teams did it, which leads one to believe there were things about the game then that prompted more coaches to feel that playing fast gave them an edge, or that necessitated playing faster.

You ignored the second sentence. Playing fast, slow, or medium does not give you any tactical advantage on its own. I think some teams are better equipped for playing faster than others but that has no bearing on your ability to stop your opponent from running their stuff.

I didn't ignore anything, but focusing on your second sentence, if it is a tactical advantage now, and wasn't back then, more teams should be trying to play fast now. That's not the case.

I guess another way to put it is that there were things in college basketball that promoted faster play. What were they, and what has changed to slow down the game in its current state. j rake's made some very good points in this regard.