🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Some great steps taken today to improve the game.

30 second shot clock

eliminate the 5 second ball handler rule

increasing the restriced area from 3 to 4 feet.

eliminating 1 timeout in the 2nd half. Limiting the amount of Timeouts to carry over to the 2nd half to 3.

No team timeouts within 30 seconds of the media timeout, the timeout will now count as the media timeout.

I think these are exciting steps to improving the game even more than all of us currently enjoy it.

I'm sure I might have missed a few others. As well adding a 6th foul will be experimented with as well.

@BeddieKU23 I like 5 sec count!

@Crimsonorblue22 Could've left the 35 second clock. If I wanted to watch NBA style bb I'd watch NBA games.

The NCAA does not have a rules problem. It has a rules enforcement problem. Until symmetric refereeing is restored, it is impossible to predict the impact of rules changes.

@brooksmd I agree completely. I see nothing wrong with the college game. Folks always want to change things, all in the name of improvement. The improvement that folks advocate for in the national media seems to fit quite nicely with their individual views on what they prefer. Jay Bilas is one that seems to prefer the NBA game -- to watch the NBA. I wish that guy would get some job outside of college sports. All he does is complain. Mike Decoursey constantly complains about freedom of movement. Again, that's a different game.

I enjoy the game that CBB is right now, where defense and physicality are a part of the game. I do not understand the mentality that associates good basketball with high scoring.

Officiating, as @jaybate-1.0 mentioned, is the biggest issue. But we saw that disaster already. Different officials, different approaches, different competency. At least now, there is some level of consistency. It isn't perfect, it isn't even good officiating, but there is some similarity in approach.

The minute you dictate change or different enforcement, it will again be a disaster. The worst thing about all sports (baseball, basketball, football) are the officials. Egos and arrogance, and inflated opinion of their real role.

For CBB, the issue is that the refs aren't under one roof. And as usual, their supervisors are/were officials as well. You have career officials. You see the same tired faces. The same ego maniacs starved for TV attention. The John Higgins and Ted Valentines of the world. All they bring to the world is the ability to trot up and down the court and blow a whistle. What a joke. And they are there because of tenure.

The cure in my opinion is the get all the refs under one roof. Dictate the attendance at clinics, and strictly dictate the adherence to the standards established. Then back it up. Have non-officials in charge of the officials. Throw tenure out the window. Then discipline and fire officials that fail to comply. That is where most leagues fail (professional and otherwise) -- they should tell officials what to do, how to act. And if they don't, discipline them, then fire them.

Nowhere is it worse than in the MLB. As an example, a common theme is that umpires each have their own strike zone. I've never understood that. The rule book clearly defines the strike zone. Make them call it. If they won't, fire them. That cancer permeates to all levels of baseball.

Most every league (pro or otherwise) permit officials to be in charge of officials. That's a huge problem. And if there is one group in this world that protects their own, it's officials. Too many stories to tell there. They are all interested in protecting their paychecks, no matter how meager. The only skin they have in the game is that paycheck.

It is the tenure part that is a big, big problem. The same guys get assignments year after year. It doesn't matter that Ted Valentine flies off the handle and ejects someone, he's back the next season. You will never convince me that a former athlete at say age 28 couldn't be trained to be better for the game of CBB than some of these overweight ego maniacs.

In CBB, the cure is a relatively easy one. Get control of the officials under one roof. Put non-officials in charge. Dictate the standards required. Discipline those that don't comply. And replace those that won't conform.

@HighEliteMajor :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1:

Per your ref to MLB umpires and the strike zone, it appears the electronic strike zone we now see on tv is about right on. Maybe it's time they went with that and leave the ump for calling outs and hit by pitch. Always thought the zone was the width of the plate and from the knees to the armpit. There for awhile if the pitch wasn't within 6 inches above or below the belt it was a ball. Old Greg Maddox used to have the widest strike zone in MLB because he was so accurate. It seemed if the catcher setup 6 inches outside and his glove didn't move the umps went with it.

I think these rules do aim to improve the game and scoring. Scoring isn't the end all to a game but to the media and $ associated with it, it has to improve to keep up. The game isn't perfect and it never will but I would like to see more possessions in games as the drop in the shot clock aims to do.

The Officials do need to be centralized and punished or rewarded for following the rules correctly or blowing a call. The officials have too much influence over pace and momentum of the game. Let's see what the new Official appointed can do. Again probably not much until they bring all these guys together and make them accountable.

I liked the timeout changes as the game was dragging forever these past few years with teams saving all their timeouts until the last few minutes. The team timeouts before media timeouts were also killers.

@brooksmd I agree COMPLETELY! I rarely use all caps -- that was worth it.

In spring of each season, MLB could get the important strike zone range on each player based on their height. Input that before each at bat. Give the ump an earpiece or a visual device in their mask. They get the indicator, call a strike. If no indication, then it's a ball. During the playoffs, I was bummed during the World Series when Fox didn't have the box showing the zone all the time like TBS did. Fox only had it here and there.

It would be a better game.

Another big benefit would be less manager/player confrontations with umps. Fewer ejections. The crowd couldn't complain too much. It would really make the entire game nicer. Umps would be facilitators. How do you argue with an electronically monitored zone?

@BeddieKU23 The change in timeout policy would do enough to speed up the game, but I would rather see plays develop rather than the NBA dribble up court and shoot; rebound, dribble up court and shoot. And we don't need 6 fouls. That would be detrimental to the development of defensive and offensive skills. Remember, basketball is supposed to be a non-contact sport. Allowing more fouls doesn't promote non-contact. Look at the NBA.

To me, the interesting thing about a 30 second shot clock is that it might actually decrease scoring even further. A lot of people assume shorter clock = more possessions = more scoring, but it's not that simple. After all, who does a shorter shot clock benefit? The defense, of course. Shortening the shot clock just gives the offense less time to find a good shot. The reasons the NBA has more scoring has more to do with the players being more talented on average, the game being longer (48 minutes instead of 40), and the 3-second defensive rule that opens up the lane more. The lack of being able to camp a footer in the lane is the reason Andrew Wiggins can go from 2nd Team All American to Rookie of the Year. At any rate, I am in favor of some of these changes, but yeah, the rules are only ever going to be as good as the refs, and I prefer the more physical and defensive minded game in college to the NBA style.

Baseballs biggest problem isn't the strike zone, it's the fricking length of games which they are finally addressing, but the games are apparently getting shorter.

Yesterday Sox A's 3:35

Wash-SD 2:46

Dodgers-Rockies 3:35

BOsox-Sea 2:32!!

TB-Minn 2:29!!!

Royals 3:12

Cards-Tiggers 3:20

And get this Cubs-Pirates 5:01 for 12 innings which absolutely ridiculous.

So some games are speeding up, but there still are a lot of slow games.

As for the college rule changes, it appears like there's some measures there to speed up its games, which I don't understand. I rarely get finished with a college game and think 'finally, it's over' (unless we're waiting to watch KU!)

So if the fewer timeouts will quicken the college game then add a few more minutes, let's say, 4 more. The games will still be over in a reasonable time period, so play a few more minutes. I'm guessing advertisers and broadcasters might miss the extra timeouts anyways.

I think the adjustment of very deliberate teams will be the most acute. I know one of the strengths of a Wisconsin or Virginia team offensively is they tend to wear down a defense. They make them work hard on defense for 30-35 seconds waiting for a lapse and then they hit them with an easy bucket. Those teams will have to adjust, which I trust they will.

@HighEliteMajor

It is a question of perspective.

Have you ever seen an ice skating compulsory figure competition where skaters make passes in various figures and the judges measure the distance between the tracks of the various passes? For purists, this is the most exiting part of the competition where for most fans it is like watching buns rise.

How about Equestrian dressage (my dad used to compete in his younger years) where riders just ride the horse starting and stopping and just changing pace and cadence? Most fans just want to see horse jumping over obstacles, but to purists, dressage is the be all, end all of equestrian events.

Both of the events I mentioned above make watching grass grow look like an action sport to the average fan, but the purists, they are the ultimate skill competitions.

Likewise, to most of us members of this forum varying from somewhat-to-very knowledgeable in the sport, a good defense is every bit as good as a good offense, but to the average fan, defense is boring and high flying offenses are exciting. Unfortunately, there are a heck more "average" than there are knowledgeable fans that appreciate the craft and the sport is tailored to the lowest common denominator and thus an exciting offense will always trump an exciting defense and hence the game will be adjusted to favor exciting offenses. Low scoring games are considered "boring" and high scoring games are "exciting," and all the changes to the sport in recent memory have been made to favor offense and higher scoring. It is really that simple.

@JayHawkFanToo I love defense that leads to offense.

@konkeyDong

Right on. No guarantee point totals will climb.

I like a shorter clock in the last 5 minutes. I think I'm for a 30 (or even a 24) second clock in the last 5 minutes because in college ball, teams with a two possession lead with 5 minutes left starts slowing it down too much. And the teams behind have to start thinking of fouling way too soon. The NBA flows better at the end of a game.

So how about making the regular shot clock 30 or keeping it at 35, and shortening the clock to 30 or 24 the last 5 minutes? I know they won't consider it... but that is something I'd like to see.

@konkeyDong

There's many ways to look at it. In the end the rules aim to make College players more prepared for the end game which is the NBA. No other sport has rules so far off from the one's they will (if good enough) play with at the next level.

Any major rule change that could have a big impact on the overall game can be scary to think the benefits will be there. 30 seconds is still a long time to get a shot off. It will force more efficient, and a faster execution of play. And hopefully Self will adjust accordingly

instead of farting around with changes, why not just adopt the International (FIBA) rules that are much closer to the NBA rules and they are what the rest of the world uses anyway? They address most of the current concerns and place American team in an equal footing in international competition, instead of having to learn the international rules. The only FIBA rule I don't care for is the basketball interference over the rim and I prefer the NBA/College version, but I can learn to live with that.

To me the death of the midrange shot has killed College offense to the core. It seems bunnies and three point shots are all that is left. If a team can't hit the three with any flavor then teams just pack it in around the paint. Basically turning the game into a blood bath.

I would also add to @jaybate-1.0 and @HighEliteMajor point that the refs don't do a very good job of enforcing the rules. I don't know how many games I've watched were the game was being called a certain way the whole game and then come crunch time what was a foul is no longer a foul and vice versa. It drives me nuts.

Also believe certain teams get breaks that others don't.. Duke and UK do quite well with the officiating crews. Drives me nuts when I see a player just get mugged at the rim by a UK player and it's a no foul because one player got all ball. Then the same player will called for a foul for just bumping a UK player. I don't even need to talk about Duke.

Another problem is each conference has their own refs with their own idea of applying those rules. Playing in the Pac is quite different than playing in say the Big 12. Not to mention the officiating changes from game to game. What was no call in one game is a foul in another.

I say simplify the rules, call the games according to the rules (no matter who the team), and let the players play.

@DoubleDD

Midrange jumpers don't space the floor very well. Part of the reason the midrange jumper has disappeared is because mobile big guys can cover so much ground that a 15 footer isn't ever really all that open.

Add to the fact that most collegiate teams almost always have at least one guy on the floor that is not an offensive threat, so you can defend 4 with 5.

Take KU for instance. Traylor and Lucas are treated as non entities offensively. Depending on the day, you may not have to guard Selden on the perimeter. That shrinks the floor substantially and really clogs the floor.

You have to have multiple threats on the floor at all times. You have to have at least 2 shot creators on the floor to bend and break down the defense. You have to be able to stretch the floor with shooting, but still create gravity with interior threats.

Most college teams don't have that. They have maybe one guy on the roster that can't be defended one on one. When you can play everyone straight up, offense stalls.

College needs to add a defensive three seconds to keep teams from camping an immobile big man in the paint. That would help with the physical play and open up the floor more.

I think the officiating has become so inconsistent... from game to game and even half to half (NC Finals), that I'd rather see us set up 10 cameras on both sides of the court and have a computer call the game. I'm pretty sure if that had been the case for the Finals, Wisconsin would have been rightly crowned NCs.

Another issue is coaching. Coaches aren't looking for players that create for themselves. We've turned college basketball into this utopia "team concept" where teams even sacrifice winning because they'd rather see balanced scoring and more assists, when they should have focused more one one or two scoring studs that can't be stopped and foul out other teams key guys.

Let me put it this way. Imagine the Chicago Bulls back when Jordan was king of the world. Imagine Bill Self suddenly becoming their head coach and installing his "team concept" game. That would be the end of Bulls trophies. I'm not slamming Self for wanting to play team ball. But sometimes you just have to play to win and not care if scoring is lopsided. You play to your strengths and force opponents into compromising their defense in other areas in order to try to shut your strength down... then other guys suddenly get open. Then your scoring gets more balanced. Let opponents determine more if your scoring is balanced or not by how they defend. The key is to win, not just to have balanced scoring.

I'm curious how shortening the shot clock will impact all of this. I'd think coaches would think just a bit less on the "pass it around a million times before we think about shooting" concept of offense and more about just going to their strength. For that reason, I think it might help to shorten the shot clock. It is bound to force more players into learning how to create their own offense.

We even see how team defense falls apart, too. Weak side help is important, but we experienced several teams that were clever enough to feed off the collapses better than even scoring by the initial threat. I've never been a big fan of help defense. I'd sell my players on being responsible for their man and if they get beat, let them get beat and become humiliated rather than bail him out all the time. I was pulling my hair out when we had Withey in the paint and except for TRele, our perimeter guys really didn't care if they couldn't manage their man. I hated that. Credit Withey for earning a record amount of blocks... and also don't forget to credit our weak perimeter defense for giving Jeff so many opportunities.

I hope Cheick just compliments our defense, and doesn't become too much "the man" in the paint and our guards grow lazy.

@justanotherfan

I don't know. This whole nixing the midrange jump shots just doesn't seem right to me. I know you and other come up with all these reasons why it should go away. However I'm man of senses. I see what I see, hear what I hear, and so on.

Roy teams shot a lot of midrange jumpers. Woodberry was always roaming that area between the paint and three land. The twins used to kill teams with their mid range jump shots. I little spin, then step back nothing but net.

Not sure why so many just want to dismiss the midrange shot. It's like playing one handed basketball. Telling the other team, hey see all this area. No need to defend this area because the mid-range is pointless?