Rule changes to rebalance offense/defense

[gumby]

Discussed here.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /25466847/

Along with 30 second shot clock:

— The rules committee will try to work with the National Association of Basketball Coaches about the number of timeouts in a game, and the long breaks that come with them. Belmont coach Rick Byrd, chairman of the men's basketball rules committee, said, "The flow of the game, the final two minutes … will be discussed."

— Adams, the outgoing head of officiating, said he believes officials like to call charges, but the mindset should be, if he's not sure the defender has met qualifications for one, he should call a block. That's not necessarily what's been happening.

— Adams said there are 38 fouls a game on average, and he thinks the sport could "live" with 45 or so a game if it would make the game better. Perhaps if officials call tighter fouls early, it could reduce contact overall, and teams would eventually adapt. There has been a general sentiment that if the rules were just officiated as they were written, that could help clean up physicality in the game, too.

— Hyland said a 4-foot restricted-area arc might cut down on block/charge calls — the toughest judgment call for officials.

— There will also be a discussion about the use of replays for judgment calls in light of the ending of UCLA-Southern Methodist in the NCAA tournament's Round of 64. The game ended on a controversial goaltending call. By current rule, because it was a judgment call it could not be reviewed.

I would really like to see timeouts limited. TV timeouts plus what they're given ... ridiculous. Especially hate the TO right before the TV timeout. No TOs unless you possess the ball. Just made a bucket? You no longer have the ball. No TO. No subs between free throws. Gotta do something to speed reviews, too. The final two minutes are interminable. Flow horribly disrupted.

[Merkin]

I have been saying for years that their should be a ref in the broadcast booth. The announcers know within 15 seconds at the most what a call should be.

On his comment that calling fouls like they are in the book would actually increase physical contact.

The general definition is that a Personal Foul occurs when physical contact is made that puts the opponent at a disadvantage or the player who committed the foul at an advantage.

You can actually have contact, and it not be a foul. Take note PAC refs. The contact must just create an advantage for the fouler. Brushing a shooters fingers after he released the ball on a 3 point shot is not a foul.

[azcat49]

None of these proposed changes would help the real problem which is the spacing of the college game.

Would love to see the international key and the only place you could get a charge as a defender would be out of the paint. Make players defend the rim not the key.

Also move the 3 point line back to open the floor more. Would love a defensive 3 second call but that would hurt the pack line defenses for sure

[Spaceman Spiff]

Call tighter fouls early, then abruptly loosen up?

Someone's been watching Pac 12 games. Maybe he should have said "call 25 total fouls in the first half and 10 in the second half."

The charge/block needs to stop getting redefined and just get defined. The last few years have been a hopscotch back and forth.

I wouldn't be offended by the NBA line. The shorter line tends to overincentivize the 3 and keep teams from running and attacking the rim.

[gumby]

My perception is that more fouls are called at the beginning of the second half. Do that in the first half, if you feel you need to send a message. Go to the block/charge rule of two years ago and stick to it.

I like those suggestions for greater spacing. Hate to say it, but the NBA is looking better. While college game is looking worse.

I'm not a huge hockey fan, but that sport has the best end-of-game excitement. Back and forth. Coaches can't stop it. Last two minutes doesn't take any longer than any other two-minute stretch. Can't prevent fouling in BB, but you can remove the timeouts and other stalling tactics coaches use to stop the action. They can strategize in practice, rather than huddle up over and over.

[KillerKlown]

Yes, because calling more fouls is the key to game flow (see PAC-12). How about calling less ticky-tack fouls which will also help the flow of the game. Shocking...
But of course they didn't say anything about TV timeouts. Shocking...

[Lute4God]

So we may or may not have a 30 second shot clock next season? Is this right?

I think this would actually help the Cats since we already force so many last second shots.

[Olsondogg]

A 30 second shot clock will not make a difference in much of anything.

[Merkin]

Think I saw that only 3.9% of shots are after the 30 second mark, so probably not a big effect.

[Lute4God]

Nice use of a Wooden Quote: "Never mistake activity for achievement"

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basket ... -30-second

“Our game is ugly right now,” SMU coach Larry Brown said before last season, during a panel discussion among American Athletic Conference coaches. “I think our game will get uglier with a shorter clock.”

It is intriguing that Brown would be one to voice this position, given that he has coached so many years at the professional level, even won an NBA championship in charge of the 2004 Detroit Pistons.

Why does he say this? Because he’s smart enough to understand a 30-second cycle would profoundly enhance the strength of the defense. The coaches know this. I spoke with a handful of Division I head coaches and assistants at the adidas Uprising tournament near Indy last month, and unanimously they expressed that a 30-second clock would lead to more “soft” pressure designed to cut shot-clock time, more zone defenses and more unattractive late-clock shots attempted merely to avoid an impending turnover.

[FightWildcatsFight]

Why not mirror the NBA's rules? It never made sense to me why collegiate sports use different rules than their professional counterparts. If the NBA product is so great, why not just emulate that at the NCAA level?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Why not mirror the NBA's rules? It never made sense to me why collegiate sports use different rules than their professional counterparts. If the NBA product is so great, why not just emulate that at the NCAA level?

NBA rules would emphasize talent gaps. The 24 second clock puts a premium on players being able to create shots. Same with the extended 3 point line. Right now, a less talented team can work the clock for better shots and take advantage of easier 3's to win games where they are at a significant talent disadvantage.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your perspective. From a purely self-interested Arizona fan perspective, the closer the rules get to the NBA, the better situation we're in.

[Olsondogg]

People are acting like the NBA is a better game...it's not. It has more talented players, but as for the game, it is not better.

I'll give you an example. Listening to the radio (cause I don't watch much of the NBA anymore) the discussion was on a revolutionary change that Steve Kerr made on defense by basically switching a defensive assignment and electing not to guard someone. I heard what a great coaching move that was and on and on....

Really? A coach made a switch and that's a discussion? Please. Its a star's game...the clear out, 1 on 1, hero basketball shot. In fact, the NBA promotes "hero ball".

Gross. Take the NBA, I don't want CBB to resemble it.

[FightWildcatsFight]

All I know is that the NBA moves much faster than college ball and my biggest gripe with CBB is that it feels so slow.

[gumby]

It's evolved from clear-out/ "hero ball." At least for the teams that want to win it. Spurs certainly didn't win that way. More ball movement and balanced scoring now.

Memo to NBA: "Hero Ball" has a negative connotation.

By making it more like NBA, I' mean more flow and an end to the flopping/charge calls in college. Also give them continuation for the "And 1." Without that, teams will continue to clog the lane and foul on drives. How many times did Stanley Johnson have baskets waved off, and it's ball out of bounds? Why make that foul a "smart play?"

Extending out the three-point line would diversify play, too. At this point, it's mostly take it to the rim or shoot a three. The rules dictate this. Need more in-between action.

NBA does have a new problem, though. The Hacka. Horrible for the game. Oh, and calling traveling now and then would be swell.

[Merkin]

Why not mirror the NBA's rules? It never made sense to me why collegiate sports use different rules than their professional counterparts. If the NBA product is so great, why not just emulate that at the NCAA level?

NBA rules would emphasize talent gaps. The 24 second clock puts a premium on players being able to create shots. Same with the extended 3 point line. Right now, a less talented team can work the clock for better shots and take advantage of easier 3's to win games where they are at a significant talent disadvantage.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your perspective. From a purely self-interested Arizona fan perspective, the closer the rules get to the NBA, the better situation we're in.

I definitely agree with this. You will see a lot less parity, and less upsets. Might was well put the NCAA tourney back to 48 teams. The game already passed by the Steve Kerrs of the world.

Can't remember the last time I have seen a NBA game. Just not interested in it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I like watching the NBA, but for entirely separate reasons than CBB. The NBA is fun because you get to watch the best basketball players in the world demonstrate their skill in pure form. It does deemphasize coaching to some extent, but that's fine. You watch to see Steph Curry shake defenders and drop 25 footers with 5 hands in his face.

College is more fun because you have an actual, personal connection to a school and because it is a crazy, anything can happen game. The skill level isn't close to as high, so you don't enjoy that nearly as much.

The NBA unfairly gets a bad rap for being iso oriented. That's largely faded, and it's underrated how hard it is to execute even an iso. The other team knows you'd probably like to have LeBron go one on one, and will attack that. Even in an iso play, the chess match with sending a double, spacing the floor, chipping cutters, backside action...there's plenty to watch. The best teams aren't iso oriented either.

As a longtime basketball player, having played against college and future pros, the amount of skill in the pro game is mind boggling enough where it easily gets lost/overlooked. Having played against pros who had marginal success, I can't begin to imagine how badly a guy like LeBron would carve me up or even a decent D1 player.

[Olsondogg]

Look you guys can say the iso is gone from the NBA, but every time I tune into a game, I see someone going one on one and throwing up a horrible shot...that sometimes goes in.

True the Spurs were an anomaly recently, which everyone outside of a few fans found boring. That's the problem right there. Good quality basketball that is played the right way in the NBA is boring.

The game in CBB moves too slow? Could it be the number of timeouts afforded to a team perhaps? Reduce that and you hav me sold. Gumby has a few good points on how to improve the game, but officiating is a start.

As far as wanting to resemble the NBA game, no...don't. The NBA hasn't been good in a long time and isn't gonna get better until they do something about the early entry rule and the NBADL. Turn that into a true developmental league that players can enter without going to college, and weed out the kids that don't want to play CBB. Make a 2 year committment to college or a year in the DL. That would help.

[TucsonClip]

People are acting like the NBA is a better game...it's not. It has more talented players, but as for the game, it is not better.

I'll give you an example. Listening to the radio (cause I don't watch much of the NBA anymore) the discussion was on a revolutionary change that Steve Kerr made on defense by basically switching a defensive assignment and electing not to guard someone. I heard what a great coaching move that was and on and on....

Really? A coach made a switch and that's a discussion? Please. Its a star's game...the clear out, 1 on 1, hero basketball shot. In fact, the NBA promotes "hero ball".

Gross. Take the NBA, I don't want CBB to resemble it.

If you dont watch the game and your only insight is from a radio interview, how do you know the NBA isnt a better game?

[TucsonClip]

It's evolved from clear-out/ "hero ball." At least for the teams that want to win it. Spurs certainly didn't win that way. More ball movement and balanced scoring now.

Memo to NBA: "Hero Ball" has a negative connotation.

Absolutely hate this marketing piece from the NBA. They are typically on point, but this slogan is absolutely terrible.

[TucsonClip]

I like watching the NBA, but for entirely separate reasons than CBB. The NBA is fun because you get to watch the best basketball players in the world demonstrate their skill in pure form. It does deemphasize coaching to some extent, but that's fine. You watch to see Steph Curry shake defenders and drop 25 footers with 5 hands in his face.

College is more fun because you have an actual, personal connection to a school and because it is a crazy, anything can happen game. The skill level isn't close to as high, so you don't enjoy that nearly as much.

The NBA unfairly gets a bad rap for being iso oriented. That's largely faded, and it's underrated how hard it is to execute even an iso. The other team knows you'd probably like to have LeBron go one on one, and will attack that. Even in an iso play, the chess match with sending a double, spacing the floor, chipping cutters, backside action...there's plenty to watch. The best teams aren't iso oriented either.

As a longtime basketball player, having played against college and future pros, the amount of skill in the pro game is mind boggling enough where it easily gets lost/overlooked. Having played against pros who had marginal success, I can't begin to imagine how badly a guy like LeBron would carve me up or even a decent D1 player.

I always tell people who claim the NBA is terrible to watch, its not a better game than the NBA, iso ball, ect... Go watch a college game and then turn on an NBA game. Tell me switching back to a college game doesnt hurt your eyes, even if it is a Bulls vs. Hornets game.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Look you guys can say the iso is gone from the NBA, but every time I tune into a game, I see someone going one on one and throwing up a horrible shot...that sometimes goes in.

True the Spurs were an anomaly recently, which everyone outside of a few fans found boring. That's the problem right there. Good quality basketball that is played the right way in the NBA is boring.

The game in CBB moves too slow? Could it be the number of timeouts afforded to a team perhaps? Reduce that and you hav me sold. Gumby has a few good points on how to improve the game, but officiating is a start.

As far as wanting to resemble the NBA game, no...don't. The NBA hasn't been good in a long time and isn't gonna get better until they do something about the early entry rule and the NBADL. Turn that into a true developmental league that players can enter without going to college, and weed out the kids that don't want to play CBB. Make a 2 year committment to college or a year in the DL. That would help.

Take a look at NBA and CBB field goal %. Despite better D, less ability to prey on weak teams and the shorter shot clock, NBA teams produce essentially comparable rates. We shot .488% (and were one of the country's best teams), Golden State shot .493%.

It's just a fallacy. By and large, college basketball has many more unwatchable games. People just don't watch Iowa/Penn State games so they cut them out of the equation. Also, if you don't like Warriors games, you don't like basketball.

Just look at how many CBB stars wash out. The amount of skill in the NBA is just hard to conceptualize.

[TucsonClip]

Look you guys can say the iso is gone from the NBA, but every time I tune into a game, I see someone going one on one and throwing up a horrible shot...that sometimes goes in.

True the Spurs were an anomaly recently, which everyone outside of a few fans found boring. That's the problem right there. Good quality basketball that is played the right way in the NBA is boring.

The game in CBB moves too slow? Could it be the number of timeouts afforded to a team perhaps? Reduce that and you hav me sold. Gumby has a few good points on how to improve the game, but officiating is a start.

As far as wanting to resemble the NBA game, no...don't. The NBA hasn't been good in a long time and isn't gonna get better until they do something about the early entry rule and the NBADL. Turn that into a true developmental league that players can enter without going to college, and weed out the kids that don't want to play CBB. Make a 2 year committment to college or a year in the DL. That would help.

The iso will never be gone. The point is, the NBA isnt Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter slow it down, clear it out and go 1v1 anymore. The last two years have been the fastest average pace since 92-93. FTA/FGA are down, fouls are down, turnovers are down, 3PA are up 80% from the early 90's, last year was the first year since 94-95 with a league average score over 101 points.

The league also set the all-time paid attendance record this year, average arena attendance set records, ect.

Change has come swiftly. The league is different than what most remember even six years ago.

The fact that people thought the Spurs were boring the last five years is based off people making general assumptions about style of play. San Antonio hasnt scored under 103 PPG since 09-10.

Do you see where I am going with this? People's assumptions and unproven statements have led to false truths.

I do not want college basketball to mirror the NBA, but a 30 second shot clock is needed. Pace of play needs to increase, like it or not.

Finally, I have no idea why you think the age rule would make the NBA a better product in any way. Thats another argument, which I wont go into detail in this thread.

[Reydituto]

Finally, I have no idea why you think the age rule would make the NBA a better product in any way. Thats another argument, which I wont go into detail in this thread.

Well, I think the age rule would benefit college more than the NBA, but to me it would improve certain facets of the product in the NBA as well, and I disagree with the popular arguments why it wouldn't.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I like watching the NBA, but for entirely separate reasons than CBB. The NBA is fun because you get to watch the best basketball players in the world demonstrate their skill in pure form. It does deemphasize coaching to some extent, but that's fine. You watch to see Steph Curry shake defenders and drop 25 footers with 5 hands in his face.

College is more fun because you have an actual, personal connection to a school and because it is a crazy, anything can happen game. The skill level isn't close to as high, so you don't enjoy that nearly as much.

The NBA unfairly gets a bad rap for being iso oriented. That's largely faded, and it's underrated how hard it is to execute even an iso. The other team knows you'd probably like to have LeBron go one on one, and will attack that. Even in an iso play, the chess match with sending a double, spacing the floor, chipping cutters, backside action...there's plenty to watch. The best teams aren't iso oriented either.

As a longtime basketball player, having played against college and future pros, the amount of skill in the pro game is mind boggling enough where it easily gets lost/overlooked. Having played against pros who had marginal success, I can't begin to imagine how badly a guy like LeBron would carve me up or even a decent D1 player.

I always tell people who claim the NBA is terrible to watch, its not a better game than the NBA, iso ball, ect... Go watch a college game and then turn on an NBA game. Tell me switching back to a college game doesnt hurt your eyes, even if it is a Bulls vs. Hornets game.

It's objectively better. Nick Johnson was a first team all american, and he's basically Jacob Hazzard on the Rockets. The idea that you can have a massive improvement in skill level and somehow it yields worse basketball...I love college ball. It has a ton of charm, and rooting for Arizona basketball is my favorite thing in all of sports. The NBA is better basketball.

Even iso's. They exist because if you can consistently get LeBron, Shaq, Kobe, etc one on one with space to operate, you will win a ton of games. Generally, teams don't do that, though. The triangle with the Jackson Lakers requires more skill and execution than college systems.

You're preaching to the choir.

[84Cat]

The Spurs last year was one of my favorite teams to watch since the 80's Lakers. The game is evolving in a good way right now.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The NBA is actually more stylistically interesting than CBB. Every year, Boeheim trots out a 2-3, Calipari runs a variation of Dribble Drive Motion, Miller runs Pack Line. Because the NBA is a personnel league, you see teams vary their style year to year and game to game.

Generally, college teams have their coach's system and recruit to the system. You know what you're gonna get every year.

[Olsondogg]

Look you guys can say the iso is gone from the NBA, but every time I tune into a game, I see someone going one on one and throwing up a horrible shot...that sometimes goes in.

True the Spurs were an anomaly recently, which everyone outside of a few fans found boring. That's the problem right there. Good quality basketball that is played the right way in the NBA is boring.

The game in CBB moves too slow? Could it be the number of timeouts afforded to a team perhaps? Reduce that and you hav me sold. Gumby has a few good points on how to improve the game, but officiating is a start.

As far as wanting to resemble the NBA game, no...don't. The NBA hasn't been good in a long time and isn't gonna get better until they do something about the early entry rule and the NBADL. Turn that into a true developmental league that players can enter without going to college, and weed out the kids that don't want to play CBB. Make a 2 year committment to college or a year in the DL. That would help.

The iso will never be gone. The point is, the NBA isnt Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter slow it down, clear it out and go 1v1 anymore. The last two years have been the fastest average pace since 92-93. FTA/FGA are down, fouls are down, turnovers are down, 3PA are up 80% from the early 90's, last year was the first year since 94-95 with a league average score over 101 points.

The league also set the all-time paid attendance record this year, average arena attendance set records, ect.

Change has come swiftly. The league is different than what most remember even six years ago.

The fact that people thought the Spurs were boring the last five years is based off people making general assumptions about style of play. San Antonio hasnt scored under 103 PPG since 09-10.

Do you see where I am going with this? People's assumptions and unproven statements have led to false truths.

I do not want college basketball to mirror the NBA, but a 30 second shot clock is needed. Pace of play needs to increase, like it or not.

Finally, I have no idea why you think the age rule would make the NBA a better product in any way. Thats another argument, which I wont go into detail in this thread.

I could give a rats ass what attendence was. Nickelback being extremely popular doesn't make them a great band.

Furthermore, the tourney just had some incrdedible ratings this year, and believe Vegas was quite happy too.

The shot clock will do nothing to the game. Zip, zero, zilch. Not without other rule changes to go along with it. I brought up the age rule to show that the NBA is taking young talent and basically sending it to the D League anyway. I don't care if it helps or hurts the NBA...I think it would help college basketball which is all I care about. You can have your NBA game and the "fun" of watching it. I see bullshit on a nightly basis that is thrown into a vine and sold as something amazing. It's not a great game most nights it's played. It hurts watching it from a basketball standpoint.

[TucsonClip]

I could give a rats ass what attendence was. Nickelback being extremely popular doesn't make them a great band.

Furthermore, the tourney just had some incrdedible ratings this year, and believe Vegas was quite happy too.

The shot clock will do nothing to the game. Zip, zero, zilch. Not without other rule changes to go along with it. I brought up the age rule to show that the NBA is taking young talent and basically sending it to the D League anyway. I don't care if it helps or hurts the NBA...I think it would help college basketball which is all I care about. You can have your NBA game and the "fun" of watching it. I see bullshit on a nightly basis that is thrown into a vine and sold as something amazing. It's not a great game most nights it's played. It hurts watching it from a basketball standpoint.

Im pretty sure the players union and the owners give a rats ass about attendance... Not sure what your point was there.

Not denying anything about NCAA basketball. Your statement was that fans think the Spurs are boring, its iso ball and 1v1 and it hasnt been good in a long time. Your opinions are fine, but no need to ignore actual facts.

The age rule has nothing to do with the D-League. In fact, as I have been discussing for over a year, the D-League is expanding, will have an affiliate for every team, more flexible roster rules and will be partially subsidized by the new TV deal.

Im not here trying to get "you" to watch the NBA. I could care less and thats not my job. I just think its amusing when people use their opinions that are based off 12 year old information to make a case against something.

I love CBB and want to keep it a separate entity, albeit with a few rule changes to make the game more comprehensive overall.

[gumby]

Spurs were not boring. I rooted for them based on style alone. Warriors and Hawks are two other teams I dig, stylistically.

I used to have the same opinion as O-dogg, but it's dated now. Game has changed.

College is number 1 for me, for the same reason I prefer college football: the passion. Screw up in the pros, and, well, you're still filthy rich and living a ridiculous life. Plus, with best of seven, you get plenty of do-overs. So no single game is all that urgent (except for Game 7s).

College doesn't need to emulate the NBA, but it needs to work on some things to get the flow and rhythm back into the game. Too much standing around now (either in huddles or on the court). Too many rules that allow coaches to intervene.

Imagine hockey or soccer teams stopping the action to draw up plays over and over in the last couple of minutes. But it's deemed OK in basketball (and football). I loved that Lute didn't burn all his TOs.

[Olsondogg]

I could give a rats ass what attendence was. Nickelback being extremely popular doesn't make them a great band.

Furthermore, the tourney just had some incrdedible ratings this year, and believe Vegas was quite happy too.

The shot clock will do nothing to the game. Zip, zero, zilch. Not without other rule changes to go along with it. I brought up the age rule to show that the NBA is taking young talent and basically sending it to the D League anyway. I don't care if it helps or hurts the NBA...I think it would help college basketball which is all I care about. You can have your NBA game and the "fun" of watching it. I see bullshit on a nightly basis that is thrown into a vine and sold as something amazing. It's not a great game most nights it's played. It hurts watching it from a basketball standpoint.

Im pretty sure the players union and the owners give a rats ass about attendance... Not sure what your point was there.

Not denying anything about NCAA basketball. Your statement was that fans think the Spurs are boring, its iso ball and 1v1 and it hasnt been good in a long time. Your opinions are fine, but no need to ignore actual facts.

The age rule has nothing to do with the D-League. In fact, as I have been discussing for over a year, the D-League is expanding, will have an affiliate for every team, more flexible roster rules and will be partially subsidized by the new TV deal.

Im not here trying to get "you" to watch the NBA. I could care less and thats not my job. I just think its amusing when people use their opinions that are based off 12 year old information to make a case against something.

I love CBB and want to keep it a separate entity, albeit with a few rule changes to make the game more comprehensive overall.

Look, I don't care about the NBA nor it's attendance. You brought up attendance as some sort of proof that because something is popular makes it good...which is not the case.

You can condemn me for "12 year old information" but what I pointed out as my opinion rings true. The NBA advertises "Hero ball" for christ's sake. My point about age restrictions would help the college game, which is all I care about.

My opinions are not based off false information, they are based on the times I've turned on the television over the past three weeks to watch Jordan/Howard get intentionally fouled to get them on the FT line so they can miss a few gimmies, and then watch Harden/Paul play hero ball and then complain about a foul that was or was not called. But enjoy the NBA, I couldn't care less....

Just because offensive metrics are trending positively doesn't make it a nice game to watch. Hopefully rule changes in college can help the game be more palatable to "fans" seeking a game that is played "quicker", but the shot clock isn't going to do that.

[ASUHATER!]

I could give a rats ass what attendence was. Nickelback being extremely popular doesn't make them a great band.

Furthermore, the tourney just had some incrdedible ratings this year, and believe Vegas was quite happy too.

The shot clock will do nothing to the game. Zip, zero, zilch. Not without other rule changes to go along with it. I brought up the age rule to show that the NBA is taking young talent and basically sending it to the D League anyway. I don't care if it helps or hurts the NBA...I think it would help college basketball which is all I care about. You can have your NBA game and the "fun" of watching it. I see bullshit on a nightly basis that is thrown into a vine and sold as something amazing. It's not a great game most nights it's played. It hurts watching it from a basketball standpoint.

Im pretty sure the players union and the owners give a rats ass about attendance... Not sure what your point was there.

Not denying anything about NCAA basketball. Your statement was that fans think the Spurs are boring, its iso ball and 1v1 and it hasnt been good in a long time. Your opinions are fine, but no need to ignore actual facts.

The age rule has nothing to do with the D-League. In fact, as I have been discussing for over a year, the D-League is expanding, will have an affiliate for every team, more flexible roster rules and will be partially subsidized by the new TV deal.

Im not here trying to get "you" to watch the NBA. I could care less and thats not my job. I just think its amusing when people use their opinions that are based off 12 year old information to make a case against something.

I love CBB and want to keep it a separate entity, albeit with a few rule changes to make the game more comprehensive overall.

Look, I don't care about the NBA nor it's attendance. You brought up attendance as some sort of proof that because something is popular makes it good...which is not the case.

You can condemn me for "12 year old information" but what I pointed out as my opinion rings true. The NBA advertises "Hero ball" for christ's sake. My point about age restrictions would help the college game, which is all I care about.

My opinions are not based off false information, they are based on the times I've turned on the television over the past three weeks to watch Jordan/Howard get intentionally fouled to get them on the FT line so they can miss a few gimmies, and then watch Harden/Paul play hero ball and then complain about a foul that was or was not called. But enjoy the NBA, I couldn't care less....

Just because offensive metrics are trending positively doesn't make it a nice game to watch. Hopefully rule changes in college can help the game be more palatable to "fans" seeking a game that is played "quicker", but the shot clock isn't going to do that.

it being popular means it isn't bad....

so the other option usually is good...

[Olsondogg]

I could give a rats ass what attendence was. Nickelback being extremely popular doesn't make them a great band.

Furthermore, the tourney just had some incrdedible ratings this year, and believe Vegas was quite happy too.

The shot clock will do nothing to the game. Zip, zero, zilch. Not without other rule changes to go along with it. I brought up the age rule to show that the NBA is taking young talent and basically sending it to the D League anyway. I don't care if it helps or hurts the NBA...I think it would help college basketball which is all I care about. You can have your NBA game and the "fun" of watching it. I see bullshit on a nightly basis that is thrown into a vine and sold as something amazing. It's not a great game most nights it's played. It hurts watching it from a basketball standpoint.

Im pretty sure the players union and the owners give a rats ass about attendance... Not sure what your point was there.

Not denying anything about NCAA basketball. Your statement was that fans think the Spurs are boring, its iso ball and 1v1 and it hasnt been good in a long time. Your opinions are fine, but no need to ignore actual facts.

The age rule has nothing to do with the D-League. In fact, as I have been discussing for over a year, the D-League is expanding, will have an affiliate for every team, more flexible roster rules and will be partially subsidized by the new TV deal.

Im not here trying to get "you" to watch the NBA. I could care less and thats not my job. I just think its amusing when people use their opinions that are based off 12 year old information to make a case against something.

I love CBB and want to keep it a separate entity, albeit with a few rule changes to make the game more comprehensive overall.

Look, I don't care about the NBA nor it's attendance. You brought up attendance as some sort of proof that because something is popular makes it good...which is not the case.

You can condemn me for "12 year old information" but what I pointed out as my opinion rings true. The NBA advertises "Hero ball" for christ's sake. My point about age restrictions would help the college game, which is all I care about.

My opinions are not based off false information, they are based on the times I've turned on the television over the past three weeks to watch Jordan/Howard get intentionally fouled to get them on the FT line so they can miss a few gimmies, and then watch Harden/Paul play hero ball and then complain about a foul that was or was not called. But enjoy the NBA, I couldn't care less....

Just because offensive metrics are trending positively doesn't make it a nice game to watch. Hopefully rule changes in college can help the game be more palatable to "fans" seeking a game that is played "quicker", but the shot clock isn't going to do that.

it being popular means it isn't bad....

so the other option usually is good...

Huh? Plenty of popular things are bad...just because legions of people like something doesn't make it good.

[ASUHATER!]

and just because legions of people like something doesn't make it bad. stop trying to be all hipster about the nba.

[Olsondogg]

and just because legions of people like something doesn't make it bad. stop trying to be all hipster about the nba.

Uh ok. Didn't know not liking the NBA was hipster...unpopular as I might be....

[Spaceman Spiff]

Im pretty sure the players union and the owners give a rats ass about attendance... Not sure what your point was there.

Not denying anything about NCAA basketball. Your statement was that fans think the Spurs are boring, its iso ball and 1v1 and it hasnt been good in a long time. Your opinions are fine, but no need to ignore actual facts.

The age rule has nothing to do with the D-League. In fact, as I have been discussing for over a year, the D-League is expanding, will have an affiliate for every team, more flexible roster rules and will be partially subsidized by the new TV deal.

Im not here trying to get "you" to watch the NBA. I could care less and thats not my job. I just think its amusing when people use their opinions that are based off 12 year old information to make a case against something.

I love CBB and want to keep it a separate entity, albeit with a few rule changes to make the game more comprehensive overall.

Look, I don't care about the NBA nor it's attendance. You brought up attendance as some sort of proof that because something is popular makes it good...which is not the case.

You can condemn me for "12 year old information" but what I pointed out as my opinion rings true. The NBA advertises "Hero ball" for christ's sake. My point about age restrictions would help the college game, which is all I care about.

My opinions are not based off false information, they are based on the times I've turned on the television over the past three weeks to watch Jordan/Howard get intentionally fouled to get them on the FT line so they can miss a few gimmies, and then watch Harden/Paul play hero ball and then complain about a foul that was or was not called. But enjoy the NBA, I couldn't care less....

Just because offensive metrics are trending positively doesn't make it a nice game to watch. Hopefully rule changes in college can help the game be more palatable to "fans" seeking a game that is played "quicker", but the shot clock isn't going to do that.

it being popular means it isn't bad....

so the other option usually is good...

Huh? Plenty of popular things are bad...just because legions of people like something doesn't make it good.

Pro sports are entertainment. The purpose is to appeal to fans. This isn't film, where the critical adulation for your Victorian period piece allows you to look down your nose at the summer blockbusters. The NBA is trending positively right now because it has an entertaining product.

There are places where it really just is hipsterism for no reason. "The NBA is just commercial. I'm more into Borokswa. You probably haven't heard of it because it's a tribal game played only in the remote portions of the Andes. You can't get it on video, but they have radio broadcasts you can buy on vinyl. Not at the big stores like Best Buy, though, so like I said, you probably haven't heard of it. Did I mention you haven't heard of it? It's played with imported emu pelts."

[Merkin]

[gumby]

I'm officially lost now. I blame hero posting,

[Airizona]

For those of you posting about the reduced shot clock having no affect because only a small percentage of shots are taken in the 30-35 second range, I think that is the wrong way to look at it. Also, where did you find that info? Just curious because I would like to look at it for different time frames in the 35 second shot clock.

The way I see it is that the small percentage of shots taken at the end of the shot clock will now be taken in the 25-30 second range...which means that a majority of shots will occur within 25 seconds of possession (previously, most shots occurred within 30 seconds of possession). SO that means there will be about 16 more possessions per game (assuming shots are taken exactly at 25 seconds with the new rule and exactly at 30 seconds with the previous shot clock rule...(40 mins x 60 seconds)/25 and 30)). Obviously this isn't very precise since teams won't be taking shots at exactly 25 and 30 seconds but I think it will speed things up a bit. If someone could link the % of shots taken in the 35 second shot clock I could be more precise.

[TucsonClip]

Look, I don't care about the NBA nor it's attendance. You brought up attendance as some sort of proof that because something is popular makes it good...which is not the case.

I brought up attendance because it does matter. It matters to the owners, it matters to the NBA union, it matters to the profits of the league as a whole. Attendance is through the roof, despite your thoughts on the league and style of play. Not to mention the mass availability of media options to watch the game from home. That matters.

You can condemn me for "12 year old information" but what I pointed out as my opinion rings true. The NBA advertises "Hero ball" for christ's sake. My point about age restrictions would help the college game, which is all I care about.

My opinions are not based off false information, they are based on the times I've turned on the television over the past three weeks to watch Jordan/Howard get intentionally fouled to get them on the FT line so they can miss a few gimmies, and then watch Harden/Paul play hero ball and then complain about a foul that was or was not called. But enjoy the NBA, I couldn't care less....

Your opinion rings true to your perspective. That was the entire point. I could care less if you watch or not, but if you are going to make sweeping generalizations then you should be aware of accurate information.

If that is your opinion on the NBA playoffs the last few weeks, fine. Again, Im not trying to change your viewpoint.

Just because offensive metrics are trending positively doesn't make it a nice game to watch.

Well, considering that my opinion and your opinion are completely different, I was providing factual information for you to consider...

[the real dill]

-35 second shot clock reduced to 30
-Restricted arc from 3 to 4 feet
-removal of one 2nd half team timeout
-no more live ball timeouts by coaches
-no more 5 second call on dribbling player
-flopping/faking a foul can be ruled a technical
-backcourt timeout does not reset 10 second count

I like all of these.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The only one I don't like is eliminating the 5 second call on dribblers. Other than that, I either like them or am neutral.

[the real dill]

The only one I don't like is eliminating the 5 second call on dribblers. Other than that, I either like them or am neutral.

Is it really going to be an issue with the shorter shot clock?

[TucsonClip]

The only one I don't like is eliminating the 5 second call on dribblers. Other than that, I either like them or am neutral.

They pretty much never call it anyway, so I am ok with it.

[Olsondogg]

Thanks for all the factual information guys.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The only one I don't like is eliminating the 5 second call on dribblers. Other than that, I either like them or am neutral.

They pretty much never call it anyway, so I am ok with it.

Yeah, it's not like I'll riot, it's just the only modification where I liked the previous rule better.

[gumby]

-35 second shot clock reduced to 30
-Restricted arc from 3 to 4 feet
-removal of one 2nd half team timeout
-no more live ball timeouts by coaches
-no more 5 second call on dribbling player
-flopping/faking a foul can be ruled a technical
-backcourt timeout does not reset 10 second count

I like all of these.

I like them all, too, but am a little worried that the flopping/faking thing would set up more reviews. Maybe it's a post-game punishment.

No subs between free throws. Get those done before the first one.
Time limit on subbing in after a player fouls out.
Keep teams on court during reviews (opposite side from coach)
No timeouts without having possession. Just made a bucket? It's not your ball anymore.

[Merkin]

No timeouts without having possession. Just made a bucket? It's not your ball anymore.

I really like this one.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I wish they'd adopt the NBA rule about end of game timeouts advancing the ball, but this is a pretty solid group of changes.

[TucsonClip]

Thanks for all the factual information guys.

No problem. Let me know if you want more, ill send you a Synergy Sports login...