I listen to, and follow Lance McAlister of Cincinnati sports talk pretty regularly. Yesterday he brought the story about the need to fix college basketball to the table. Quite honestly, there isn't much that I feel really needs fixed in terms of the length of games. Many talk about problems with scoring, and suggest that the rules are the problem. I'm not so sure about that being the only problem. I think the approach to the game is part of what is affecting scoring. It seems to me that so many players are only interested in shooting three's and dunking, and not enough of them have a mid-range game, or know how to draw contact, and therefore, draw fouls.



That said, the KC Star poses a couple suggestions I can get behind:

1) 30 second shot clock

2) Wider lane (by a little)

3) No consecutive timeouts. If one coach calls timeout, then play should resume before another can be called.


Ideas I won't support:

1) Quarters. I hate the idea of quarters, and I love the media timeout consistency

2) Trimming D1 - I like the idea that on any day, in theory David can beat Goliath. That should never change in my book, as it's something great about college hoops.




Lance McAlister's thoughts and links to articles on this subject:

http://www.700wlw.com/onair/lance-mcalister-7818/college-.../


Two pieces from the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-me...

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/dont-k...

I wonder if some recent developments in the pro game and recent comments from Kobe, Poppovich, etc. about Europe will have a trickle-down effect. 10-15 years ago, the NBA was terrible skill-wise in comparison to the mid-90s and now. Today's NBA game is much better in terms of skill and BBIQ. The Spurs have been doing it for a long time, but now you have the Warriors, Hawks, Grizzlies absolutely thrashing the NBA without marquee, high-flying Jay-Rich types. The Pistons got rid of Josh Smith and look what happened.

I think the game can fix itself organically and you will see teams win consistently by running a system. Wisconsin has a system. So does VCU. Kentucky got a bunch of future all-stars to put egos aside and adopt the platoon system. It could be several years, but basketball in general at all levels should improve on its own.

I just hate that a lot of college basketball teams rely on recruiting "athletes" instead of actual basketball players. Cincinnati is notorious for this. As great as a player that Sean Kilpatrick became by his senior year, the guy couldn't even go to his left for the majority of his time at UC.

I understand that you can essentially teach an ultra-talented athlete certain things once they get on campus, but man is it hard to watch. I guess the trade off is some recruiters and coaches think they can't teach a good basketball player how to be more athletic, which is partially true. Some things you just can't teach.

The very first thing they need to do is move the 3 point line back. That's the cause of most of NCAA basketball's issues. The shorter three point line leads to smaller driving lanes AND it's simply way too close. It turns the game into a three point shooting contest and little else.

So Kevin Durant's mom is not the real MVP?

When I first saw the title of the thread I thought it was about the mob in Toledo paying Rocket players once again as they did "back in the day." But, on the subject of changes to the game rules, the only one that I'd like to see is raising the hoop to somewhere between 11 and 12 feet. A number of years ago, SI did a study with hoops at I believe 11 feet. This had the effect of making height less of a factor and making good guard play a little more crucial, everything else being equal. I remember they said that the ball tended to rebound off the iron farther away from the basket because of the angles involved and that, therefore, guards got more rebounds than they would have with the ten foot basket. These are all generalizations, but it seems to me that giving a good small guy a little more advantage over a big oaf would not be a bad thing.

My take is that the college game is pretty good as is the HS game.

What most fans take is that the game is " this" or the game is "that" based on how they see their role as a spectator. "I want a fster paced game" or "I am bored so HS needs a shot clock"

Like Kobe and some others have seen ...the situation at the top absolutely depends on the bottom. If kids are not learning the game the game becomes flawed. At each level it is not about the fans.

HS kids DO NOT need a shot clock. One thing that is positive is that we got 7 minute quarters for JV. Previously kids were playing 6 mins from 5th grade grade school ball till they were in some cases juniors in High School.The fans held it off as long as they could because it messed with their time frames. Instead of enjoying a game they were more interested in getting to the main show instead of looking at what was coming up. So each level has physical constraints and mental constraints. Putting a shot clock in HS ball so fans are treated to a "more exciting experience" is ludicrous. Teaching a kid to defend while the opposition is learning to value the ball and run the offenses is where HS players should be. 5th graders should be learning to get the ball off the board and fill lanes and a rudimentary offense (not the one that favors the coaches kid) that takes place when the fast break off a good block out occurs.

At the Junior High level kids should be learning offenses and good mechanics. All levels should be emphasizing less games and more drills up through Jr high. Those parents who are signing their kids up to dominate 5th grade are insane. I remember talking to TOmmy about classmates. Though he was successful in grade school he was not getting the 3rd quarter if he did not have 10 assists in the first 2. I knew he could score but he needed to learn the team came first. WHile other parents were worried about the numbers I worried about teaching the game. We were winning 72-18 but it was because we boxed out and filled lanes and played D. We were not allowed to pick up till half court in that league but we jumped and knew ball you man and played line of the ball from the jump. Fill lanes and run in 3-5th grade and those kids were in heaven. I told them constantly to work and do not worry about the kids who were beasting the league scoring 40 point because we beat them. I reminded those grade schoolers that absolute worst thing that could happen to any of them was to be the best 5th grader....because that is what you would always be ....the best 5th grader....you ain't got no upside. You are done when you are big and storng with hair on your legs and a deep voice. It is all you will ever be.

At HS level kids learn traps, presses, honing shooting skills and defending M2M as they can't really learn zones without carrying strong M2M skills forward. No shot clock and anyone who is calling for a lot of change in HS is either a fan with ADD or a parent who has an all star kid they are hyping and do not see the bigger picture. Guarantee those complaining are not standing in the drive way breaking down the basics of where your hands should be when you release the pass and passing off the dribble with the right then the left.

The college game is the same. We moved the line back several season back and *I* believe it is fine. YOu look at a pro in the NBA and Europe and see the line being back. You look at a frosh like we have this year and you understand the college game is not filled with guys who are 4 years older and have all day to lift and train and get 1500 shots up because it is their job.

The 35 sec shot clock is about right for that level of player. 24 just means they come down and chuck and if you have watched a ton of NCAA women you may feel the same. The jump in strength is intense from frosh to senior. I think folks who are talking about change are chasing things just to chase things. They need to look at the american game which is still the bast in the world and see how the players can get better. It is not the game that needs changed it is the players.

The refs and the NCAA need to define what they want. Rick Mount or Pistol could not make it is todays game. As talented as they were they would be bodied up and directed with the stronger guard defining what they could do in the open court.

I watched Ray Meyer at Depaul redefine hoops. HE was recruiting athletes and polishing their basketball skills. Terry Cummings, Skip Dillard, Ty COrbin ...there were some athletes. Ray turned them into hoopers and the entire coaching world followed suit. The game changed as coaches and fans ate it up ..."let em play" was heard and coaches taught defenders to run through shooters to the point where being a true jump shooter got you hurt. The three point line and the equalibration of talent took the middle away and re established shooting. Defense responded by getting tough of shooters and making jump shooting vs quick release a liability. Reversed a bit when rules got enforced and now the "never foul a jump shooter in the air" is an axiom all have heard by noe.

It all changes and those of us old enough to see and appreciate where it came from and how change affects the game feel compelled to speak up when folks with ADD as fans are changing things to hurt a game that has evolved for the better over time. The loud rabble wanting change is not looking t the physical and mental developement of the athletes in question as much as they are fulfilling the need to hear themselves talk and be part of demand being created not by the folks playing the game or coaching it. I think the game is pretty good and oppose raising the rims, moving the line back to the NBA level. WIdening the lane may be a good start or the trapezoid. Surely changes like cleaning up the game is a GREAT start. If refs cleaned it up kids woudl adapt and coaches would quit saying things to me like "Tom, we are so strong, we like to muddy it up, we tell our kids push the envelope the refs won't call everything if you establish that early" Well if that is the emphasis and the kids and coaches know they are gonna get called then they will adapt. Whoever talked about grade shool parents is spot on up top. More drills less games. YOu never see a piano player doing recitals 2 -5 times a week. More practice, more skills at the outset. That is how the pro game gets betteron the other end

Just my limited view from my corner of the world

Also, just for the record: Kobe's comments are completely off base. The idea that European players are somehow more fundamentally sound than US players is misguided and nothing more than cherry picking. He mentioned Marc Gasol in his rant, which is hilarious, because he played 4 years at a US high school and AAU ball before skipping college to play professional in Europe. The comparison there just isn't a fair one; Kobe sees a 19 year old Zach LaVine and whines about his lack of fundamentals and compares him to Marc Gasol, who played professionally for 6 seasons I the world's second best league before making his debut at age 24. AAU basketball doesn't factor into the equation there. He also conveniently ignores that the vast, vast majority of European players come to the US and lack the ability to contribute immediately. How many European guys have joined the NBA in the last 3 seasons and have been able to seamlessly slide into a rotation? The Euroleague's leading scorer is a 7th man for a bad Nets team not because his scoring doesn't translate, but because he can't defend. Is that not a "fundamental"? We ignore when a Sergey Karasev can't dribble or when Vitor Faverani can't defend a pick and roll to save his life, and then look at Marc Gasol's 6 extra years of development as an indictment on how high school age guys are developed in the US. It's apples to oranges. The point isn't that we develop players poorly, it's that there's a giant dead period in terms of development for anybody who isn't able to contribute to an NBA team between the ages of 18-22.

I am not a great fan of most athletes talking and quoting what they perceive to be fact, while they have good insight and thought, they do not vocalize it well. I think he does have a point. The European game is different and is team oriented. The americans are limited to 2 or 4 players depending on the league and are the best players without a doubt. I know that 2 hours a day players are in outreach programs teaching the game as part of the pro contract. The Teams are oft allied with a "Uni" team. The clubs are stratified with amateur 18 u, 17 u and so on with the pro team being the zenith and the teams under the umbrella as part of the organization learning and playing the game.

You have taken the NBA players in the US as your benchmark. Is that not the same situation as Kobe's generalized comments?

The game here is flawed in it's administration. Now that the HS coach is supplanted and taken out of the mentor spot by the Off school situation it is worse. The guys coaching hS and teaching the game are becoming fewer and farther between. We are fortunate in IN to have passionate guys teaching kids at lower levels the game the way they learned it. We have the idjuts but they are far overshadowed by guys coaching 3rd grade ball with the organization and passion many HS coaches in other states approach the game.

I am curious as there is a comment in there that the "point is not that we develope players poorly, but that there is a dead period from 18 - 22" Are you saying that the players coming out of HS are essentially on track fundamentally and with good basis of skills across the board and adequate with basketball IQ but are stunted and their skill development and knowledge of the game stifled and not at all advanced by coaching staffs across the NCAA? Is it inferred that the select few that are offered a pro contract then grow exponentially because of the coaching they get by NBA coaches?



EXAMPLE http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/other-sport/...

For a casual fan, that I'll admit to being, the most obnoxious thing about the sport right now is the way every close game ends. Endless trips to the foul line, timeout after timeout, the complete loss of game flow, etc., etc. When it takes 20 minutes to play the last 5 of an important game, everyone loses.

I don't know how to fix it but I've seen proposals that I think I would prefer to what happens now. The worst part is that the more important the game, the larger the problem.

Somehow making both teams play basketball to the end has to take priority over "managing the clock" or "strategic substitutions" or whatever the problem is. One idea; follow hockey's example, if you cause a stoppage, you don't get to substitute, you don't get a favorable inbound, you get screwed.

From the NCAA today:


Experimental rules to be used during 2015 NIT include 30-second shot clock
NCAA.com

Last Updated - Feb 6, 2015 13:02 EST
Contact | Archive | RSS

Men’s basketball teams selected to play in the 2015 Postseason NIT will compete using experimental rules, including a 30-second shot clock and a four-foot restricted-area arc. The rules will be in effect for all 31 games of the tournament.


http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-02-0...