🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Thoughts?

• A deeper 3-point line. It will be moved back approximately 20 inches to the distance used by FIBA in international competition (22 feet, 1.75 inches).

• A wider free throw lane. It will be extended from 12 to 16 feet, which is used in the NBA.

• Quarters, not halves. The game will still have 40 minutes of game clock, but it will be broken into four 10-minute quarters, which was adopted for the women's college game in 2015. For each quarter, two free throws are awarded once a team reaches five fouls.

• After an offensive rebound, the shot clock will reset to 20 seconds, as opposed to the full 30.

Permanent rule changes to the sport cannot be made until the current two-year cycle ends in May 2019.

@BeddieKU23 I don't like it. Seems like change just to change things. I like things the way they are.

Hawk8086 said:

@BeddieKU23 I don't like it. Seems like change just to change things. I like things the way they are.

On all of them? I can see a few of these being positive changes.

I like the quarters and going straight to two free throws thing.

Why are they widening the free throw lane? Isn't this going to make the game even more dominated by the 3 ball?

Just experimenting closer to international game. Should go to the trapezoid lane and shorter clock.

The college game is great. They just need to leave it the HE** alone!

@BeddieKU23 MAYBE the 3 pointer moving back...that would be it for me.

Quarters are fine by me, but leave the fouls by the half and take away 1 or 2 timeouts to balance it out.

Move the three point line back to open thing up inside a bit would be ok.

I’m not sure what widening the lane does? Accommodate the bigger players of today?

The offensive rebound shot clock to 20 seconds is supposed to speed things up I guess, but it penalizes good effort down the stretch when you’re trying to run the clock out.

The longer 3 point gives players an opportunity to shoot closer to the NBA range which is not necessarily a bad thing; many players routinely shot from there anyway. Longer rebound might favor the offense.

Four quarters help coaches to do in game adjustments having a longer time to do it in between quarters. Actually, it would have given Devonté a much needed additional rest.

Resetting the clock to only 20 seconds after an offensive rebound helps speed up the game some.

Since the foul count resets every quarter, the rule will help teams that do not foul. Huggy will not like that one.

I am not sure if the wider FT lanes favors offense or defense. Getting close to NBA rules might not be a bad thing, although it helps mostly the tiny number of college players who go to the NBA.

I don’t see anything that will change the game that much.

Hawk8086 said:

@BeddieKU23 MAYBE the 3 pointer moving back...that would be it for me.

I would be okay with that one as well. We have seen the NIT be the guinea pig for potential changes before. I highly doubt all four would happen at the same time. We could see all four trickled in over time.

@BeddieKU23

How about:

—No betting;

—Objective refereeing;

—No petroshoeco-agency complex sponsorship of teams; and

—no exploits of the NCAA when speculative stories about FBI investigations are being dribbled out.

@jaybate-1.0 Now you're just being ridiculous!

@Hawk8086

Can't hurt to dream about a second rate tournament that was marginalized, and eclipsed by the NCAA tourney, because of how corrupt the NIT once was.

@jaybate-1.0 But at least when the NCAA was sued for putting the NIT out of business the NCAA did the honorable thing--they bought 'em.

@mayjay

The NIT was reputedly formed by NY sports writers with the reputed backing of Big Apple gambling racketeers in 1938.

The NAIA small college tourney was started 1938 by James Naismith and hotel industry promoters in Boss Tom Pendergast's then machine town of Kansas City, MO.

The NCAA tourney was started in 1939 with strong advocacy from Coach Harold Olsen of Ohio State and Forest Allen of KU. Allen of KU had long been critical of east coast gambling's adverse influence on college basketball.

Which tourney do you think was the most corrupt in the early days 1938-1940: NIT, NAIA, or NCAA?

@jaybate-1.0 None. The annual TiddlyWinks competition was the most corrupt.

I hear players were flipping all over the place.

😀

I do not like changing lanes or 3-point lines. It alters records and makes it harder to compare players from eras. I love the quarters instead of halves and I hate 1 and 1s. I am ok with the shot clock reset as long as it doesn't cause any clock issues and goes smoothly.

@Kcmatt7 I don't think stats in the "Not Intheother Tournament" should count toward career, season, or game statistics, anyway. Call it an exhibition.

@mayjay Agreed lol. But just in general, they always test out the rules in the NIT before the implement them for real. I hope that the NCAA does not implement the floor change. Who knows if DG could have broken Boschees 3pt record if the line hadn't been moved back? Is it likely? No. But, it is possible. And now we will never know for certain.

@mayjay You’re right who cares about the Not Invited Tournament? Stats shouldn’t count for such an obviously Not Important Tournamnet.

So with quarter breaks what happens to the every four TV timeouts? Will that be adjusted? If not it's another TO. Not sure that's a good thing. But in general, rules need to stay current with the times, and interestingly, international ball is influencing this very American sport.

The one thing that won't change is NIT will stand for Not In Tourney.

@jaybate-1.0

Where do you get your information that the NIT or any of the other tournaments are or were corrupt? I remember watching the NIT in the 70s when it was a prestigious event and never heard back then or since that it was corrupt or any of the other tournaments for that matter.

Do you have any factual information or is this another Jaybate theory?

@JayHawkFanToo All fiction no malice.

JayHawkFanToo said:

@jaybate-1.0

Where do you get your information that the NIT or any of the other tournaments are or were corrupt? I remember watching the NIT in the 70s when it was a prestigious event and never heard back then or since that it was corrupt or any of the other tournaments for that matter.

Do you have any factual information or is this another Jaybate theory?

@JayHawkFanToo

Why do you ask?

You recall I don’t do leg work for you, right?

And you know I try not to waste time with apparent mischaracterizations of my posts, right?

And you know I don’t even see a lot of the mischaracterizations of my posts, right?

And you remember I don’t do “theories”, and I tend to believe “conspiracy theories” are mostly memed for suckers, or the term is mostly used for smears, at least since the stuff about Intel and MSM reputedly using “conspiracy theory” for smearing came out, right? 👍

And you remember I do “hypotheses,” or just opine and speculate as a layman fan, right?

Cat got your attack graphic? 😀

Be of good cheer. De-wad your boxers. And enjoy the 14th. 👏

Next.

Buffer 1

Buffer 2

Buffer 3

Buffer 4

Buffer 5

Start graphics below.

Howling!

@jaybate-1.0 In practice debates in HS, whenever we got caught making an assertion without authority, we used to say, Why that's just common knowledge! In the case of the NIT in the late 40's I think that works. Dunno about the others, though.

@mayjay

Ya think?

@mayjay

What do you think about the 1938-1940 period, specifically?

@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

@jaybate-1.0 Don't know anything about that. I was hoping you would treat JHF2's question seriously, like the rest of us do all our lives when someone says something startling (Huh? Where'd you hear that?), so I could do further reading. Your responses to him are really really odd.

Cool that Trae Young will be able to try out the longer-distance 3 line.

@Apologist Absolutely savage. PHOF

@mayjay Yeah, not sure why asking for a source would be treated with hostility. I get the "another Jaybate theory" isn't particularly kind, but it's far from insulting in my opinion.

BShark said:

@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

Why?

But thanks for sharing.

mayjay said:

@jaybate-1.0 Don't know anything about that. I was hoping you would treat JHF2's question seriously, like the rest of us do all our lives when someone says something startling (Huh? Where'd you hear that?), so I could do further reading. Your responses to him are really really odd.

Thanks for sharing.

I find both of your posts really odd at times, too.

But it’s okay.

benshawks08 said:

@mayjay Yeah, not sure why asking for a source would be treated with hostility. I get the "another Jaybate theory" isn't particularly kind, but it's far from insulting in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing.

@mayjay

We really are keeping @Red.Rooster busy with these posts about what you and I find really odd!

Rock Chalk!

NBA sucks. International ball? Who cares.

@jaybate-1.0 I think you're talking about the 1949/1950 scandal, where NY mobsters bought players to shave points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCNY_point_shaving_scandal ↗ ↗

@jaybate-1.0 I am always happy when I get back on and find 10 to 15 upvotes because it is the assurance I need that @Red.Rooster is back on checking things out!

An interesting comparison, my warm feelings about Rooster vs my antipathy toward the other member of Gallus gallus domesticus, the evil el pollo!

@jaybate-1.0

I see, no answers. Nothing new there.

jaybate 1.0 said:

BShark said:

@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

Why?

But thanks for sharing.

Why should someone be able to make an outrageous claim and the defense is simply like @mayjay said "it's common knowledge". That doesn't work. Not if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Other people shouldn't have to fact check for someone that's making a claim, especially when it's very likely hogwash.

JayHawkFanToo said:

@jaybate-1.0

I see, no answers. Nothing new there.

Sorry to let you down.

I’m hoping you will see a pattern emerging here in my resolve not to engage you seriously.

You and I don’t need each other’s approval to have fun and matriculate here.

As always, my best advice is to resist the temptation to read my posts to avoid the unfulfillment. You are supposed to come here for fun and learning. If you get neither from me, by all means stop reading my posts. The format mercifully makes it effortless to do.

Rock Chalk!

BShark said:

jaybate 1.0 said:

BShark said:

@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

Why?

But thanks for sharing.

Why should someone be able to make an outrageous claim and the defense is simply like @mayjay said "it's common knowledge". That doesn't work. Not if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Other people shouldn't have to fact check for someone that's making a claim, especially when it's very likely hogwash.

Says you.

But I did not sign any by laws here that I have give you the evidence you ask for.

Further, you are assuming it’s outrageous, likely hogwash, and imputing its a claim with out giving me any evidence you are correct. I am not persuaded by you, but at least I am not calling it hogwash and demanding evidence. I’m fine with you opining, as I did, but dont expect me to agree or do your legwork for you. Man up and do it yourself. It’s ok with me if you don’t believe me.

There are things posted here that I dont believe and don’t respond to out of curtesy. There are other things posted here that are patently silly, or offensive, directed at me, that I respond to by not taking seriously. Other opining I learn from and have good give and take. I NEVER feel a poster, even an a-hole, owes me any evidence! I ask sometimes, but if I really want to know something I always go study for myself. IMHO, no poster here owes any other poster here a bunch of leg work.

And around the internet demanding more and more evidence appears increasingly one of the disinfo techniques of fracking discourse.

Get a grip!

Aliases don’t OWE aliases the evidence. It’s a gift if they give it, not an obligation.

.

@jaybate-1.0 And your approach could be called painting, not sharing. When someone asks for more information, sometimes they just are interested in where you saw something. If they suggest they disagree or disbelieve, and ask for where you saw something, they are asking for elaboration. Sometimes they are asking simply because it differs from what they thought before, but asking indicates an open mind.

You post the lengthiest discourses that supposedly invite discussion, but you flip off JHF2 all the time, and me half the time, and some others occasionally. But I think you don't realize that many people might have similar thoughts or questions to the ones we raise.

http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=playingforthemob ↗ ↗

@jaybate-1.0 Recently in a discussion with me you claimed TTU was faking injuries when it was all documented and one of the players had a broken foot. Then later you said KU players play through those injuries, but I can scarcely recall the last time a KU player played with a broken bone. So forgive me if I am a little weary at this point.

Way back when, when I was young, dumb, and full of %*$&, I paid for a tout where the guy told me to play Kent St ( or somebody ) at +8 with as much money as I could gather up, and Kent State? won by 48 points. I bet 1,000 on that one, and hit it big. Then, the next day the guy gives me 3 picks, and they all lose. To this day, I think that game was fixed.

@BeddieKU23 If they expand the free throw lane by four feet will the refs ever make a 3 second call?

@KUSTEVE It doesn't have to be the game itself, just a con similar to the good old investment advice reverse pyramid. Could be he gives touts to an equal number each way and only keeps contacting the people who won on their last bet and keeps doing this until he has lost this group and sets up a new one, replenishing all the time. Often starts with a free one to prove how good he is and pull people in. The ones who lose toward the end don't quit after winning a bunch of times in a row, because they figure he just had bad luck once. A good one can milk it for awhile with his trusting "winners".

BShark said:

@jaybate-1.0 Recently in a discussion with me you claimed TTU was faking injuries when it was all documented and one of the players had a broken foot. Then later you said KU players play through those injuries, but I can scarcely recall the last time a KU player played with a broken bone. So forgive me if I am a little weary at this point.

Whoa! Don’t be silly. I speculated Tech might be. You never provided convincing evidence they weren’t. So you’re POV is no stronger than mine. And the real point was whether they were making a best effort to win games, or resting for the conference tourney. I’m probably MORE weary with you at this point than you with me. Cole Alrdrich wore a mask for much of a season. Reed played operable. So many guys have played with severe injuries I forget them all. Selby worn a boot on a stress fx or reaction for part of a season. Remember WITHEY’s lip? He kept playing with that! Ellis played after the nose attack on the WSU player’s elbow. Kaun played on no knees his last season. Mario from Chicago played on one leg. You apparently haven’t been paying attention to KU play-thru ball. Try more bed rest, if you’re serious about being weary.

@BShark You have to remember, JB assumes any player that wears a shooters sleeve has an arm injury :joy:

And apparently a bloody/broken nose is the same thing as a broken foot lol.

I linked to an article talking about the broken foot. Was I supposed to get a note from his surgeon?

KU players play with amputated limbs regularly.

@BShark Somehow he is going to argue a broken foot is far less painful than some injury a KU player played through.

BShark said:

KU players play with amputated limbs regularly.

That explains why they are shorter by the time they have NBA combine measurements than when they enrolled at KU.

@mayjay !alt text ↗

mayjay said:

@jaybate-1.0 And your approach could be called painting, not sharing. When someone asks for more information, sometimes they just are interested in where you saw something. If they suggest they disagree or disbelieve, and ask for where you saw something, they are asking for elaboration. Sometimes they are asking simply because it differs from what they thought before, but asking indicates an open mind.

You post the lengthiest discourses that supposedly invite discussion, but you flip off JHF2 all the time, and me half the time, and some others occasionally. But I think you don't realize that many people might have similar thoughts or questions to the ones we raise.

Now tell me what is wrong. Why do you worry about my post length? Why do you read my “painting? “ If you don’t like my posts and responses, if the painting and length seem weird to you why do you read and respond? Does what you are doing seem odd on your part? Why do you read long paintings, if you don’t like the experience? Why do you respond as you do? What makes an alias read what they think is weird? Why don’t you give yourself some limits? I give myself some. I don’t read every post. I often skip long posts, or even short posts.

Why aren’t you being kinder to yourself?

Focus on controlling what you read rather than on trying to control what I write. Isn’t that the healthy, happy way?

What would you think if I started saying you were weird for writing short, non-paintings?

No one is paying you to read my long paintings, right?

Be kind to yourself.

Just say no to my posts.

They are intended only for enjoyment.

They are not meant for everyone.

They are playful and often silly.

Do you really want to spend time reading and negatively judging another’s posts that you arent enjoying? It seems, sort of a waste.

Wouldn’t you really rather have fun reading short, non-paintings of others?

Be good to yourself.

Have fun. You know my icon now. It’s easy to avoid.

But I’m ok, whatever you decide.

Rock Chalk!

Kcmatt7 said:

@BShark You have to remember, JB assumes any player that wears a shooters sleeve has an arm injury :joy:

And apparently a bloody/broken nose is the same thing as a broken foot lol.

And I’m usually RIGHT!

😂

Hey, you guys are pretty ticked I called this title before you!😂

jaybate 1.0 said:

Kcmatt7 said:

@BShark You have to remember, JB assumes any player that wears a shooters sleeve has an arm injury :joy:

And apparently a bloody/broken nose is the same thing as a broken foot lol.

And I’m usually RIGHT!

😂

No it’s more like playing operable!
😂

@jaybate-1.0 Why? Because I think sometimes there is a dialogue on an interesting topic, and I am a hopeless optimist that maybe you finally set aside your petulant side in favor of trying to get along.

You are right, that is on me.

The "painting" comment was only in response to your post describing what you do. It had nothing to do with length or content. I meant you put some things out there and instead of discussing them, you are like the painter who says everyone with questions about his art has to answer them him, or her, self.

Finally, what is the Buffer thing all about? I can't go look that up anywhere!

@mayjay
We are both hopeless optimists.

But you confuse petulance with tolerance and playfulness.

P.S. : Just between you and moi, I’m really very easy to get along with. A push over, really. Have a great day!

P.P.S.: Oh and I really like all this splatter you two left on my alias! Nice job!

Buffer 1

Buffer 2

@jaybate-1-0 rule #1 of posting...if you can't dazzle then with brilliance, baffle them with the bull...and a few buffer posts, whatever that is.

@jaybate-1-0 Rule #2 of posting...if you are called on your nonsense, go back to rule #1... getting personal this time around.

So predictable, never changes and likely never will.

The funny parts is that if he knew for a fact what he posted was true, he would not need to do any leg work for any one, as he calls it, he would just post the information. Hogwash is hogwash...even if it is 2,000 word post.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

JayHawkFanToo said:

@jaybate-1-0 rule #1 of posting...if you can't dazzle then with brilliance, baffle them with the bull...and a few buffer posts, whatever that is.

@jaybate-1-0 Rule #2 of posting...if you are called on your nonsense, go back to rule #1... getting personal this time around.

So predictable, never changes and likely never will.

The funny parts is that if he knew for a fact what he posted was true, he would not need to do any leg work for any one, as he calls it, he would just post the information. Hogwash is hogwash...even if it is 2,000 word post.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

$$$$$

Boo, I really like that splatter job!