menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Suggest rules changes
Page: 3 of 3
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/21/2013 9:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
: you make good points about the size, speed, strength and nutrition of today's athletes, but you are also ignoring the fact that Dave Jamerson, Rick Mount, etc...today would also benefit from the weight room, training tables and modern training techniques and would be better themselves.


Not ignoring that at all, just pointing out that the person that everyone has etched into their memory or has seen on film would not make it today. The new improved version may look more like Steve Blake or Gansey.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 2/21/2013 10:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I don't know about that, Jamerson was a great talent with the size as well, and a range that made him special. With a modern strength coach and training he'd have still been one of the best in the country. It's kind of like saying Larry Bird still wouldn't be Larry Bird today. All things equal he'd still be Larry Legend.
Last Edited: 2/21/2013 10:16:09 PM by BillyTheCat
Bex1036
General User
B1036
Member Since: 11/11/2011
Location: Bexley, OH
Post Count: 4
person
mail
Bex1036
mail
Posted: 2/21/2013 10:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note
stub wrote:expand_more
Coaches should not be able to call timeouts.


What's your basis for that?


Coaches sometimes call timeout to offset something they think is about to happen to the detriment of the team. The coach may see something imminent that the players aren’t aware of- perhaps he anticipates a jump ball coming, or a double team that doesn't  look too good for his kid “No Hands Stan”; or a 3 or 5 second violation about to be called; or a player about to step out of bounds; the possibilities are endless. Maybe this is unfair to the opposition, a debatable point I suppose.

Just my opinion, but I prefer play be determined by the play on the court without coach intervention. 



I agree 100% with coaches not calling timouts.  One of the biggest gripes I have about that is it is not fair to the officials who have to listen for a coach, possibly on the other end of the floor, yelling a screaming for a timeout.  Plus, I have been to games where fans scream "call a timeout" and the officials stop the game.  I think players should be aware enough to call their own timeout or look to bench for signal to call it.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/21/2013 11:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bex1036 wrote:expand_more
I agree 100% with coaches not calling timouts.  One of the biggest gripes I have about that is it is not fair to the officials who have to listen for a coach, possibly on the other end of the floor, yelling a screaming for a timeout.  Plus, I have been to games where fans scream "call a timeout" and the officials stop the game.  I think players should be aware enough to call their own timeout or look to bench for signal to call it.


Ha

Knowing the minds and mindsets of many of those players *IMHO* I do not see that as an option. Most coaches get paid to see what is happening well before it happens. How many times do fans here critique coaches for not taking a to or taking one to late/trying to make it to the media TO. At any time a player could call that one yet you never see it happen. Coaches are expected to see things and should know the opponent so well that a run must be immediately stemmed or momentum shift avoided. without that ability they are open to some pretty rigorous critique. They may be student athletes but only a few are true students of the game or are intellectually coaches on the floor. As good as Coop is I would hate for him to be the one to say "hold up, let's regroup", It is not in his DNA and would just not happen. He is in attack mode 100% all the time.

I like less control from the bench but without the staff constantly reminding the players of what is on the scout "high hedge that screen", "shooter", " watch the flare" and a myriad of other things that are taking place I am pretty sure the Coach without the time out ability or relying on trying to get a players attention to call it is going in the wrong direction. Imagine if it still had to be a captain to call it. 

 

Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 2/22/2013 12:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
Imagine this.  Miami vs Ohio for the MAC tourney title.  Miami has a 5 point lead with 4 minutes to play.  In today's day and age, that's eons of time to come back in a 2-possession game.  With no shot clock, Miami can stall.  Miami is not forced to attempt another FG in the remaining 4 minutes.  Do you start fouling with 4 minutes left?  How much time do you let them burn until you foul?  Instead of getting at least 7-8 possessions in the final 4 minutes, you are guaranteed of...none.  And that's good for the game?  Fouling can become a requirement to make any sort of comeback late in a game because there's no requirement for the team with the lead to attempt a shot.  As a matter of fact, it's not in their best interests to attempt FG's and allow the trailing team the chance at a rebound and a possession. 


I can only assume that you didn't experience basketball when it was played this way.  As I believe Jeff pointed out, stalling isn't that easy.  There is a 5 second rule, you know.  The offense has to play when challenged.  Simple.  Scores like 11 - 6 only occurred when the defense allowed it and, so, you were never sure what you were going to see when you went to a game that was a supposed mis-match.  The underdogs always had a shot (no pun intended).

All I will say is that it can't just be accepted that the shot clock makes for a better game.
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,728
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 2/22/2013 1:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcatbob wrote:expand_more
Imagine this.  Miami vs Ohio for the MAC tourney title.  Miami has a 5 point lead with 4 minutes to play.  In today's day and age, that's eons of time to come back in a 2-possession game.  With no shot clock, Miami can stall.  Miami is not forced to attempt another FG in the remaining 4 minutes.  Do you start fouling with 4 minutes left?  How much time do you let them burn until you foul?  Instead of getting at least 7-8 possessions in the final 4 minutes, you are guaranteed of...none.  And that's good for the game?  Fouling can become a requirement to make any sort of comeback late in a game because there's no requirement for the team with the lead to attempt a shot.  As a matter of fact, it's not in their best interests to attempt FG's and allow the trailing team the chance at a rebound and a possession. 


I can only assume that you didn't experience basketball when it was played this way.  As I believe Jeff pointed out, stalling isn't that easy.  There is a 5 second rule, you know.  The offense has to play when challenged.  Simple.  Scores like 11 - 6 only occurred when the defense allowed it and, so, you were never sure what you were going to see when you went to a game that was a supposed mis-match.  The underdogs always had a shot (no pun intended).

All I will say is that it can't just be accepted that the shot clock makes for a better game.


Why?  Because of fewer possessions?  

If it can't just be accepted that the shot clock makes for a better game, how can it be accepted that removing it would make for a better game?  That door swings both ways. 
Showing Messages: 51 - 56 of 56
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)