Rule Changes
- Thread starter Moose
- Start date
Good for Jordan, Branch and probably Harrison, but probably not good for the team as a whole. The more they can overwhelm their opponents on the defensive end, the more successful they will be. SJU is also very foul prone. I know Dom always has his hand or forearm on someone.
I never want free throws deciding games with this team. Hopefully Jordan and Branch can hit around 80%. Harrison will really benefit from this rule on the offensive end. He has such an underrated handle IMO and he really knows how to draw fouls. The problem is, he is always poking, pushing, or holding someone on the defensive end.
Dom is really going to have to focus on not gettin into foul trouble. This rule is not good for him.
There are very few players I would take over Harrison at the college level. You are absolutely right about how he draws contact and so far from the hoop as well. If someone was designing Harrison in a video game, his skill level and instincts would both be near 10. The only bad part is his athleticism is probably about a six. I think he is going to have an oustanding year and he is probably one of the most underrated players out there.
Amaseinyourface, you are spot on with Pointer. This rule will affect him as much as anyone in the conference. Luckily, St. John's has enough depth to run three awesome guards all game long in Pointer's absence.
I think this is something Dom needed to address anyway, and it doesn't have to impact his aggressiveness. You can see a lot of his fouls coming from a mile away. He likes to body guys in the open floor and on the perimeter, and the ref will usualy give him a one count, two count, and on the third count he gets whistled. You have to have that internal timing to know when to give some space to avoid a foul call.
With our depth I would never propose that Dom tone down what he brings defensively. But there's also an element of wanting to have him available as an option late in close games. I think he can keep his fouls in check without any change in intensity because a lot of his fouls are body fouls - he's not a big reacher, and when he reaches he has a knack for doing so cleanly - and reducing those have a lot to do with knowing when to give space for a second before re-engaging.
Agree most of his fouls occur 30+ feet from the hoop, but I don't see Dom as a big reacher. The image ingrained in by head is Dom getting whistled for a foul and turning to the ref/our bench with his hands up to suggest he wasn't using his hands. Which is true, but he also had his hip attached to the ball-handler for 20 feet in the open court which is going to get called eventually. Could be wrong. Either way, he's going to have to find away to maintain his defensive presence without fouling as much with the rule change.
beast of the east
Active member
I don't like the rule changes. All of these things were always discretionary fouls. you cannot play defense without using your hands to a degree. Coaches always taught that you play defense with your feet and not your hands. Grabbing, shoving, chopping, holding, impeding with hands has always been a foul.
This is the rule that will be a mess:
• Keeping hand or forearm on an opponent.
When a player is posting, does this mean you can't have a hand touching his back? When you fight through a pick, can you not put your hand on the guy setting the pick to fight your way through? If your hand is out playing face to ace defense and your hand touches the offensive players chest, is this a foul?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but this rule in particular looks like a mess
This is the rule that will be a mess:
• Keeping hand or forearm on an opponent.
When a player is posting, does this mean you can't have a hand touching his back? When you fight through a pick, can you not put your hand on the guy setting the pick to fight your way through? If your hand is out playing face to ace defense and your hand touches the offensive players chest, is this a foul?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but this rule in particular looks like a mess
Moose
Well-known member
Interesting to see a lot of articles pointing out how the college game needs to be changed. This is ESPN Insider piece but I felt the contents were important and everyone should see them. This was also in the recent ESPN Magazine College Hoops preview. By Jay Bilas.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...as-ideas-fix-college-basketball-espn-magazine
COLLEGE BASKETBALL is a great game, but it has been slowly declining over the last several seasons, for a variety of reasons. Don't be fooled by a terrific and aesthetically pleasing NCAA championship game between Louisville and Michigan, or get distracted by the billions of dollars being generated off the game. The quality of play simply isn't keeping pace with the quality of players and coaches in the game.
To the old-timers who love to blame AAU basketball for the so-called erosion of fundamentals, that is simply wrong. The players coming out of high school are better, more athletic and more skilled than they have ever been, but you wouldn't know it from watching the college game. For years, the casual fan couldn't tell the difference between a good game and a close game, and college basketball has benefited from that; but now, it's clear to everyone how difficult the game has become to watch.
We are headed into what could be one of college basketball's best seasons in years, mainly because of the star power of the incoming freshman class. But it would be folly to ignore the game's problems: It is over-coached, too slow and allows a level of physicality that takes away from the beauty of the sport.
But we can and should do something about it; we need to make college basketball more watchable and a better fan experience. And part of the solution is admitting the NBA has a better product because it calls fouls and allows its players to use their athleticism on both ends of the floor.
Here are four ways college basketball could follow the League's lead.
Make officials, well, official.
NBA coaches don't whine during games nearly as much as their college counterparts, and their sideline behavior is much better. Why? In large measure it is because the NBA mandates the standards by which its employees call games -- and enforces it. College officials, on the other hand, are independent contractors who answer to many different masters (conference supervisors, the NCAA and seemingly every coach) with many different standards.
So, whether it is through the NCAA or the big conferences, the best college officials need to be full-time, salaried employees; their schedules, training and accountability should be administered under one umbrella. NCAA supervisor of officials John Adams is doing an admirable job, but the only real leverage he has comes in his selection of officials who work the NCAA tournament. That is not enough.
Clean it up.
Over a decade ago, the NBA had become a grinding, physical, mugging league; beauty and grace were being sacrificed in the flames of the Jordan Rules. But the League went through a Freedom of Movement initiative, and cleaned up its act. College basketball still lags in that area, convinced it "values" or "cares" about defense more. What nonsense.
Over the past 50 years, shooting percentages and scoring have fluctuated in concert with the changes in the college game, yet the number of fouls called has largely stayed constant. That indicates that, consciously or unconsciously, officials are being selective about what they call.
There is way too much physicality in today's college basketball.
They feel stuck due to competing interests -- they need to get games over with, and they get criticized for certain games being parades to the free throw line. In turn, because officials will only call so many fouls, coaches have determined that organized fouling is a competitive advantage. As a result we see coaches teaching teams to "be physical with your chest," by which players keep their hands up but commit felonies with their chest and lower body.
Administrators believe that the status quo allows the underdog to be a factor in more games with Goliaths, so much so that one official once said that with greater freedom of movement, the better player would have an advantage. Think about that for a minute. That's like saying Usain Bolt will have an advantage in the 100-meter dash if he is allowed to run in a straight line without being grabbed and held.
And to be clear, what I'm talking about is not defense. It's one thing to hold the ball -- that can be good strategy. But you cannot hold your opponent. That is a foul. And until those fouls are called consistently throughout the season, the game will continue to be a slugfest worthy of Pat Riley's old Knicks teams.
Speed it up.
There is no shot clock in the world that is as long as the 35 seconds in men's college hoops. The NBA (24 seconds), FIBA (24 seconds), the WNBA (24 seconds) and women's college basketball (30 seconds) all operate successfully with shorter shot clocks. That is embarrassing.
Similarly embarrassing are the self-serving excuses on why it shouldn't change. For some coaches who yearn to control every dribble, they fear a shorter clock will lead to more bad shots. Others believe it will lead to more possessions, which will provide an advantage to better, deeper and more talented teams. In fact, the NBA gathered data on the subject when the WNBA went to a reduced shot clock, and fears of bad shots were unfounded -- scoring went up and the game became more enjoyable for players and fans. There is no downside to a shorter shot clock.
While we're on the topic of speed of the game, college basketball would benefit by going to a four-quarters system instead of two halves, and reducing the number of team timeouts. With media timeouts every four minutes, the number of team timeouts should be reduced to only two per half, with only two available in the last two minutes of the game or overtime. And by going to four 10-minute quarters instead of two 20-minute halves, there would be more natural breaks that follow exciting end-of-clock situations, and fewer annoying stoppages in play while still allowing the necessary amount of commercial breaks.
Let the talent shine.
Right now the men's game is unbalanced, with too many shots coming from 3-point range because the risk of the shot is less than the reward. If the NCAA adopted the NBA 3-point distance of 23 feet, 9 inches, it would improve floor spacing, open up better driving lanes and put the appropriate risk back into the shot.
At the same time, the lane should be widened to match the NBA lane, with the same restricted area or charge circle. What's the objection? These are great athletes that we often say should be allowed to go to the NBA early, yet they cannot handle playing the game with pro rules? Nonsense. When college teams go overseas for foreign tours, they do very well with the shorter shot clock, longer 3-point shot and wider lane.
One last thought (and it's a no-brainer): Allow the NBA throw-in from the frontcourt in the final two minutes of regulation and overtime. This move not only increases excitement and makes the game more enjoyable for fans, but it allows for greater strategy on the part of both the offense and the defense.
Look, I love college basketball. It is a great game, and can be the best game. But when you love something, you take care of it -- even when the truth is painful.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...as-ideas-fix-college-basketball-espn-magazine
COLLEGE BASKETBALL is a great game, but it has been slowly declining over the last several seasons, for a variety of reasons. Don't be fooled by a terrific and aesthetically pleasing NCAA championship game between Louisville and Michigan, or get distracted by the billions of dollars being generated off the game. The quality of play simply isn't keeping pace with the quality of players and coaches in the game.
To the old-timers who love to blame AAU basketball for the so-called erosion of fundamentals, that is simply wrong. The players coming out of high school are better, more athletic and more skilled than they have ever been, but you wouldn't know it from watching the college game. For years, the casual fan couldn't tell the difference between a good game and a close game, and college basketball has benefited from that; but now, it's clear to everyone how difficult the game has become to watch.
We are headed into what could be one of college basketball's best seasons in years, mainly because of the star power of the incoming freshman class. But it would be folly to ignore the game's problems: It is over-coached, too slow and allows a level of physicality that takes away from the beauty of the sport.
But we can and should do something about it; we need to make college basketball more watchable and a better fan experience. And part of the solution is admitting the NBA has a better product because it calls fouls and allows its players to use their athleticism on both ends of the floor.
Here are four ways college basketball could follow the League's lead.
Make officials, well, official.
NBA coaches don't whine during games nearly as much as their college counterparts, and their sideline behavior is much better. Why? In large measure it is because the NBA mandates the standards by which its employees call games -- and enforces it. College officials, on the other hand, are independent contractors who answer to many different masters (conference supervisors, the NCAA and seemingly every coach) with many different standards.
So, whether it is through the NCAA or the big conferences, the best college officials need to be full-time, salaried employees; their schedules, training and accountability should be administered under one umbrella. NCAA supervisor of officials John Adams is doing an admirable job, but the only real leverage he has comes in his selection of officials who work the NCAA tournament. That is not enough.
Clean it up.
Over a decade ago, the NBA had become a grinding, physical, mugging league; beauty and grace were being sacrificed in the flames of the Jordan Rules. But the League went through a Freedom of Movement initiative, and cleaned up its act. College basketball still lags in that area, convinced it "values" or "cares" about defense more. What nonsense.
Over the past 50 years, shooting percentages and scoring have fluctuated in concert with the changes in the college game, yet the number of fouls called has largely stayed constant. That indicates that, consciously or unconsciously, officials are being selective about what they call.
There is way too much physicality in today's college basketball.
They feel stuck due to competing interests -- they need to get games over with, and they get criticized for certain games being parades to the free throw line. In turn, because officials will only call so many fouls, coaches have determined that organized fouling is a competitive advantage. As a result we see coaches teaching teams to "be physical with your chest," by which players keep their hands up but commit felonies with their chest and lower body.
Administrators believe that the status quo allows the underdog to be a factor in more games with Goliaths, so much so that one official once said that with greater freedom of movement, the better player would have an advantage. Think about that for a minute. That's like saying Usain Bolt will have an advantage in the 100-meter dash if he is allowed to run in a straight line without being grabbed and held.
And to be clear, what I'm talking about is not defense. It's one thing to hold the ball -- that can be good strategy. But you cannot hold your opponent. That is a foul. And until those fouls are called consistently throughout the season, the game will continue to be a slugfest worthy of Pat Riley's old Knicks teams.
Speed it up.
There is no shot clock in the world that is as long as the 35 seconds in men's college hoops. The NBA (24 seconds), FIBA (24 seconds), the WNBA (24 seconds) and women's college basketball (30 seconds) all operate successfully with shorter shot clocks. That is embarrassing.
Similarly embarrassing are the self-serving excuses on why it shouldn't change. For some coaches who yearn to control every dribble, they fear a shorter clock will lead to more bad shots. Others believe it will lead to more possessions, which will provide an advantage to better, deeper and more talented teams. In fact, the NBA gathered data on the subject when the WNBA went to a reduced shot clock, and fears of bad shots were unfounded -- scoring went up and the game became more enjoyable for players and fans. There is no downside to a shorter shot clock.
While we're on the topic of speed of the game, college basketball would benefit by going to a four-quarters system instead of two halves, and reducing the number of team timeouts. With media timeouts every four minutes, the number of team timeouts should be reduced to only two per half, with only two available in the last two minutes of the game or overtime. And by going to four 10-minute quarters instead of two 20-minute halves, there would be more natural breaks that follow exciting end-of-clock situations, and fewer annoying stoppages in play while still allowing the necessary amount of commercial breaks.
Let the talent shine.
Right now the men's game is unbalanced, with too many shots coming from 3-point range because the risk of the shot is less than the reward. If the NCAA adopted the NBA 3-point distance of 23 feet, 9 inches, it would improve floor spacing, open up better driving lanes and put the appropriate risk back into the shot.
At the same time, the lane should be widened to match the NBA lane, with the same restricted area or charge circle. What's the objection? These are great athletes that we often say should be allowed to go to the NBA early, yet they cannot handle playing the game with pro rules? Nonsense. When college teams go overseas for foreign tours, they do very well with the shorter shot clock, longer 3-point shot and wider lane.
One last thought (and it's a no-brainer): Allow the NBA throw-in from the frontcourt in the final two minutes of regulation and overtime. This move not only increases excitement and makes the game more enjoyable for fans, but it allows for greater strategy on the part of both the offense and the defense.
Look, I love college basketball. It is a great game, and can be the best game. But when you love something, you take care of it -- even when the truth is painful.
TRabinowitz
Member
It's the same freedom of movement rules as the NBA. The rules will be really good for the game. Scoring will be up and so will free-flowing offense. You can run under or over a screen without using your hands.
This will not de-emphasize defense, it will just increase scoring. The best defensive teams in the NBA are still the ones that are most successful and that didn't change when these rules were put into effect there. The fact is that the college game has gotten way too physical on the defensive end which has caused it to stifle offensively. I love college basketball, but the basketball itself was often extremely ugly. This rule, plus hopefully a shorter shot clock, will help to bring more people into the college game. The first few months though will be rough as teams adjust to rules.
redstorm80
Well-known member
Jay Bilas is the best, I wish Fox Sports 1 had him. I pretty much agree with everything he said
I like Bilas a lot, as well. I agree with most of his article, but he makes the NBA out to be the standard by which college basketball should aspire to. I find the NBA generally unwatchable. His comment that dismisses the CBB view that they take more pride in defense is hard to accept. Other than deep in a playoff series or generally in the conference finals and Finals, the NBA does not play defense, so I'm not sure what he's getting at there.
There are a couple of things that stand out as problems for me. The 4 quarters and all the TO's in the NBA make the end of their games drag out forever. I'm fine with staying with two halves. And, as for his "no-brainier" at the end...is he kidding? I still don't know how the NBA justifies giving a team progress up the court by doing nothing and calls that better for the game. It is not IMO. At least in football you have a choice to take a knee on the kickoff or to return the ball, or the kicking team can force you to return the ball with a shorter kickoff. In any event, you have to earn your progress on the field. On the other hand, in the NBA it's a free walk up the court everytime. No thanks.
There are a couple of things that stand out as problems for me. The 4 quarters and all the TO's in the NBA make the end of their games drag out forever. I'm fine with staying with two halves. And, as for his "no-brainier" at the end...is he kidding? I still don't know how the NBA justifies giving a team progress up the court by doing nothing and calls that better for the game. It is not IMO. At least in football you have a choice to take a knee on the kickoff or to return the ball, or the kicking team can force you to return the ball with a shorter kickoff. In any event, you have to earn your progress on the field. On the other hand, in the NBA it's a free walk up the court everytime. No thanks.
Agreed. The only thing that I agree with in this article is that the officiating in college hoops is way too inconsistent. Always has been. Essentially it is based upon the notion that college hoops is a product to be sold and that product needs to pander to fans that are too ignorant to appreciate the nuances of the game and only want to see dunks and 3 pointers. Unfortunately in addition to the flawed logic, Bilas is playing right into the hands of the NCAA here by on the one hand leading the charge against the NCAA and financial equity for players, then talking about making college hoops NBA Lite - a product for fans that generates billions. These are the extreme positions that will entrench the status quo. The truth is that the NCAA was formed for noble reasons and that is the high horse it rides on. Making the goal of college sports just a product to bilk money from stupid fans is not the right approach to reforming it. You might as well just kill it now and we can go back to our high school and CYO games.
This article shows what I feared would be the result of the recent rule changes. Basically the opposite of its intention
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab...nges-may-result-whistle-181529872--ncaab.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab...nges-may-result-whistle-181529872--ncaab.html