New rules approved

[Sean Miller Fan]

1. 30 second shot clock

- We all knew this was coming. I dont agree with it. Neither does Andy Toole:

“In college basketball (as opposed to the NBA), the skill level isn't the same and it takes time for guys to make decisions,” Toole said. “It takes time to break down defenses. Guys are not as talented to create their own shot. Teams that play zone (defense) will have an advantage because it's harder to find shots against a zone. (Offensive players) need more time to find a good shot.”

2. Teams can only carry-over 3 TO's to the 2nd half instead of 4.

- I like this a lot. We need to eliminate overcoaching and let the players think for themselves more. This also will cut down the game time although it'll probably incent coaches to call an extra TO in the first half since they don't like them at half....so maybe it wont have as much of an effect


3. TO's called within 30 seconds of a scheduled media TO will take the place of the media TO.

- I like this more. For years, I've been saying they should eliminate 1 TV TO per half. Most posters thought that was a dumb idea because sponsors wouldn't go for less commercials but that's what they are doing here. If you call a TO with 8:28 left in the game, for example, that becomes the TV TO so instead of the sponsors getting a few commercials in at 8:28 and then at 7:57, the 7:57 break is eliminated. Less commercials. Faster game. Fantastic. I'm going to start charging for some of these ideas.


4. Coaches won't be allowed to call TO's in live ball situations.

- I dont care much.


5. The 10 second to get the ball across halfcourt rule does not reset after a timeout or other stoppage.

- I guess it makes sense but I dont like the idea of a foul being called with say, 7 seconds left on the 10 seconds, and the team has to make it the whole way down the court in only 7 seconds. I think the shot clock should be used and the buzzer go off when it reaches 25 so its easy to tell. Teams like Louisville and VCU will really benefit from this.


6. Teams only get 15 seconds instead of 20 to sub in a player after a foul-out and referrees will award a 1 shot technical foul after one warning if teams do not comply.

- I doubt this will be enforced.


7. Video reviews can be used for potential shot-clock violations

- Good.


8. Video replays can be used to penalize players for "flopping."

- Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. People knock soccer all the time because players fake injuries to try to get the other team carded. Flopping in basketball is the closest thing. It shouldn't be part of the game. Its not good defense. Lets get rid of it!


9. Class B technical fouls, such as hanging on the rim and delay of game will be 1 shot instead of 2.

- OK. Not a big deal.


10. Players can dunk during warmups now.

- dont care much


11. No more 5-second closely guarded rule

- I like the 5 second rule though but you rarely see it called.


12. NIT, CBI, and CIT will use 6 fouls.

- I think 5 is enough.

 

[Taft's Baby Hook]

#3 is a godsend.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

1. 30 second shot clock

- We all knew this was coming. I dont agree with it. Neither does Andy Toole:

“In college basketball (as opposed to the NBA), the skill level isn't the same and it takes time for guys to make decisions,” Toole said. “It takes time to break down defenses. Guys are not as talented to create their own shot. Teams that play zone (defense) will have an advantage because it's harder to find shots against a zone. (Offensive players) need more time to find a good shot.”

Again, I think this helps out the defense moreso than the offense. Good defensive teams will only be better, bad defensive teams will have less time to be bad. But overall, I think it is negligible. I think the intent here is to change the mindset of a lot of coaches, to try and attack instead of trying to limit possessions. But while possibly increasing possessions, will they be quality?

2. Teams can only carry-over 3 TO's to the 2nd half instead of 4.

- I like this a lot. We need to eliminate overcoaching and let the players think for themselves more. This also will cut down the game time although it'll probably incent coaches to call an extra TO in the first half since they don't like them at half....so maybe it wont have as much of an effect

Fantastic. The less TO's the better.

3. TO's called within 30 seconds of a scheduled media TO will take the place of the media TO.

- I like this more. For years, I've been saying they should eliminate 1 TV TO per half. Most posters thought that was a dumb idea because sponsors wouldn't go for less commercials but that's what they are doing here. If you call a TO with 8:28 left in the game, for example, that becomes the TV TO so instead of the sponsors getting a few commercials in at 8:28 and then at 7:57, the 7:57 break is eliminated. Less commercials. Faster game. Fantastic. I'm going to start charging for some of these ideas.

Again, changing the mindset. I like any rules that put more of the game in the hands of the players instead of the coaches. Players create, Coaches stifle. Pretty much true in any sport. I am not sure how the sponsors are going to react though. They need their commercials.


4. Coaches won't be allowed to call TO's in live ball situations.

- I dont care much.

Why not? If they see something they need to fix on the fly while in possession, why not?


5. The 10 second to get the ball across halfcourt rule does not reset after a timeout or other stoppage.

- I guess it makes sense but I dont like the idea of a foul being called with say, 7 seconds left on the 10 seconds, and the team has to make it the whole way down the court in only 7 seconds. I think the shot clock should be used and the buzzer go off when it reaches 25 so its easy to tell. Teams like Louisville and VCU will really benefit from this.

Interesting.

6. Teams only get 15 seconds instead of 20 to sub in a player after a foul-out and referrees will award a 1 shot technical foul after one warning if teams do not comply.

- I doubt this will be enforced.

Good concept, but who will be counting? It is those who take 40-45 seconds that stick out.

7. Video reviews can be used for potential shot-clock violations

- Good.


8. Video replays can be used to penalize players for "flopping."

- Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. People knock soccer all the time because players fake injuries to try to get the other team carded. Flopping in basketball is the closest thing. It shouldn't be part of the game. Its not good defense. Lets get rid of it!

Yeah, I don't mind this. But I would prefer even more to just go with no calls. Just because a defender flops to the ground, there does not always need to be a whistle. The refs just stop calling it, there would be little impact on the game flow. Another video review is another stoppage.


9. Class B technical fouls, such as hanging on the rim and delay of game will be 1 shot instead of 2.

- OK. Not a big deal.

Makes sense


10. Players can dunk during warmups now.

- dont care much

WOO HOO


11. No more 5-second closely guarded rule

- I like the 5 second rule though but you rarely see it called.

This was subjective at best. I guess with the other rules, this really becomes obsolete.


12. NIT, CBI, and CIT will use 6 fouls.

- I think 5 is enough.

Well this will help us out over the next few years. Okay, I kid, I kid.........

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

So let's see...
the players aren't good enough to break down a defense...but, we need LESS coaching.

Perfectly logical.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

So let's see...
the players aren't good enough to break down a defense...but, we need LESS coaching.

Perfectly logical.

OK. Less in-game micro-managing. Happy now?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

OK. Less in-game micro-managing. Happy now?

It's still conflicting ideas.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

So let's see...
the players aren't good enough to break down a defense...but, we need LESS coaching.

Perfectly logical.

Yeah.....do you watch basketball because of the coaching or the players? In ANY sport, less coaching usually means a more fun product. Because afterall, this is supposed to be about entertainment...fun.....right?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Yeah.....do you watch basketball because of the coaching or the players? In ANY sport, less coaching usually means a more fun product. Because afterall, this is supposed to be about entertainment...fun.....right?

Do you find AAU hoops to be more entertaining than college?
Pick up games?
Just curious.

 

[levance2]

5. The 10 second to get the ball across halfcourt rule does not reset after a timeout or other stoppage.

- I guess it makes sense but I dont like the idea of a foul being called with say, 7 seconds left on the 10 seconds, and the team has to make it the whole way down the court in only 7 seconds. I think the shot clock should be used and the buzzer go off when it reaches 25 so its easy to tell. Teams like Louisville and VCU will really benefit from this.

A foul always resets the clock, so this is a dumb complaint. This would be for kicked ball or deflected pass. The primary purpose would be to stop coaches from calling a timeout after 8 seconds of failing against a press. Unless you think you can get it up in the subsequent 2 seconds, you are better off with no stoppage.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's still conflicting ideas.

Maybe in your way of thinking. My thought is that you do most of your coaching in practices, pre-game talks, halftimes, and in the many, many, many timeouts and stoppages there are during the game. Taking away 2 or 3 of those many, many, many in-game stoppages should not lessen the quality of play or shots being made. College basketball has got to be the most over-coached sport there is (my opinion). In taking a top-down look at it, maybe part of the problem with low-scoring is the fact that these players are being over-coached and playing too robotic. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Yeah.....do you watch basketball because of the coaching or the players? In ANY sport, less coaching usually means a more fun product. Because afterall, this is supposed to be about entertainment...fun.....right?

I am of an analytical bent. I watch college hoops more for the coaching than for the talent and athleticism of the players. If the players were what i was mainly interested in I would watch street ball and AAU basketball or the NBA. I watch none of those.

At the end of the day, I am entertained if the team i am a fan of (e.g., Pitt) wins; or, in losing it seems to me that they played as well as they could giving 100% effort at both ends of the court. I most especially enjoy seeing a less talented but more disciplined team defeat a more talented but less disciplined team---to me that is a beautiful thing.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

2. Teams can only carry-over 3 TO's to the 2nd half instead of 4.

- I like this a lot. We need to eliminate overcoaching and let the players think for themselves more. This also will cut down the game time although it'll probably incent coaches to call an extra TO in the first half since they don't like them at half....so maybe it wont have as much of an effect

The change isn't to make it so that teams have two "use it or lose it" timeouts in the first half, it's to reduce the total number of timeouts that a team can call from five to four. One of them is still a "use it or lose it" timeout. So if a coach uses two timeouts in the first half he's only going to have two timeouts left to call in the second half. The effect is that teams will have one less timeout.

As far as taking TV timeouts when a timeout is called near a scheduled television timeout, the womens game has been doing that for years. The mens game used to take the commercial break when a timeout was called after the scheduled TV timeout. It was dumb to change it when they did, but I'm not so sure how much "credit" you deserve for coming up with a suggestion that was already being used.

Additionally, your notion that this results in fewer commercials is wrong. In your example of commercials during a called timeout at 8:28 being skipped, that would be great, but in all but NCAA tournament games that timeout at 8:28 has NEVER been a commercial break. That has always been time for them to show replays or go back to the studio for an update or things like that. It was only during NCAA tournament games when the networks were permitted (by NCAA rule) to show commercials during those timeouts. So in any regular season game you watch next year, this will make absolutely no difference in the number of commercials you will see.

As far as the 30 second clock keeping teams from getting good shots off, the women somehow manage to still get good shots off in 30 seconds. College guys playing in international tournaments still manage to get good shots off. High school kids playing in international events manage to get good shots off. When the NIT used a 30 second clock no one really even noticed. The 30 second clock is going to prove to be much ado about nothing.

 

[anon_d97v9o3a8b6xr]

Let's see how many flops are called and video playbacks are used in a Duke game. I say coach k gives the refs his stare down and no flopping calls ever called against them.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

If they really wanted to fix this "perceived" problem they would not simply reduce the number of timeouts allowed in the 2nd half. Instead, they would reduce the number of timeouts allowed in the last two minutes. Coaches will simply hoard their reduced 2nd half timeouts saving them for the last two minutes. So, nothing will change in the last two minutes which is supposedly what the committee is trying to fix!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Do you find AAU hoops to be more entertaining than college?
Pick up games?
Just curious.

No and I know you were going to go there (I would if I was taking your position too). But I find college basketball to be WAY over coached. And evidently, so do the powers to be, to implement these rules.

Do you watch basketball to watch the players or watch the coaches call time outs?

 

[levance2]

Do you watch basketball to watch the players or watch the coaches call time outs?

I watch basketball to watch my team win. I don't care if they need 100 timeouts to do it.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I watch basketball to watch my team win. I don't care if they need 100 timeouts to do it.

That's great. I am glad at least someone on this board admits that his team winning has some kind of effect on the enjoyment of a game.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I can't understand why any true Pitt fan would be in favor of rule changes (not that I think these changes will really have their intended result) that would increase the advantage the "blue-blood" schools already enjoy thanks to their attractiveness to the most talented and athletic hoops recruits. Dominance by a few schools is not good for college basketball and certainly not good for Pitt since Pitt will never recruit at the talent level of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I can't understand why any true Pitt fan would be in favor of rule changes (not that I think these changes will really have their intended result) that would increase the advantage the "blue-blood" schools already enjoy thanks to their attractiveness to the most talented and athletic hoops recruits. Dominance by a few schools is not good for college basketball and certainly not good for Pitt since Pitt will never recruit at the talent level of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc.

We aren't competing with them right now. So what. I mean, let's face it, the "bluebloods" , and the "bluebloods" provide a very solid excuse as to why Pitt cannot recruit. But seriously, let's go back 20 years. These are your champions:

UCLA 1
Kentucky 3
Arizona 1
UConn 4
Michigan State 1
Duke 3
Maryland 1
Syracuse 1
UNC 2
Florida 2
Kansas 1
Louisville 1

All of those schools are "blue bloods" or near blue bloods. It is almost as exclusive as college football.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I watch basketball to watch my team win. I don't care if they need 100 timeouts to do it.

Yea, I dont care if a Pitt game takes 3 hours. The longer, the better, actually. But when I watch a non-Pitt game, the constant stoppages are annoying as heck, especially in the last 2 minutes

We aren't competing with them right now. So what. I mean, let's face it, the "bluebloods" , and the "bluebloods" provide a very solid excuse as to why Pitt cannot recruit. But seriously, let's go back 20 years. These are your champions:

UCLA 1
Kentucky 3
Arizona 1
UConn 4
Michigan State 1
Duke 3
Maryland 1
Syracuse 1
UNC 2
Florida 2
Kansas 1
Louisville 1

All of those schools are "blue bloods" or near blue bloods. It is almost as exclusive as college football.

I guess its how you define blue blood. For me, the blue bloods will forever be only: UK, KU, Duke, UNC.

The next tier down is:

Arizona
UConn
Mich St
Syr
Florida
Louisville
Indiana
Ohio State
Wisconsin

Pitt is on the next list with:

Maryland
Nova
Gtown
Virginia
The entire Big 12 outside of KU, TT, TCU
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan
Iowa
Minnesota
ND
Oregon
Cincy
Memphis
Temple
etc
etc

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Bottom line, regardless of blue-blood definition--although for me the UK, KU, Duke, UNC group is about it--any rule change that makes (or might make) Pitt less competitive I automatically dislike. I don't watch basketball for "showtime" I watch it for precision and execution. I am more excited by a nice backdoor pass for an open layup than by someone spinning 360 degrees ih the air and finishing with a backwards dunk over a less athletic defender. I can see the latter or any other one on one basketball anytime at an AAU tourney.

 

[levance2]

Yea, I dont care if a Pitt game takes 3 hours. The longer, the better, actually. But when I watch a non-Pitt game, the constant stoppages are annoying as heck, especially in the last 2 minutes

I just don't understand the furor over end of game situations. I would absolutely rather players have a timeout to discuss the offensive set they want to run and potentially win a game. I'd also absolutely have my defense huddle and figure out who they should cover and defend that last shot. Who wants a game to end with a forced 3pt attempt or a dumb turnover? I don't understand why people think more entertaining play will come with less coaching. It is almost surely the opposite.

I don't watch basketball for "showtime" I watch it for precision and execution. I am more excited by a nice backdoor pass for an open layup than by someone spinning 360 degrees ih the air and finishing with a backwards dunk over a less athletic defender.

As I said, I watch sports to see my team win. It's not like we're talking about soccer where you spend 2 hours watching 1 goal get scored. Why would I care at all whether a basketball team wins with 90 points or 60 points? These rules changes are only identified by the media (and the NCAA as a result) because they are afraid that casual fans with no real rooting interest are going to get bored. If you're now expecting teams to score 80 points, then you're just trading bad offense for bad defense. Defense doesn't sell shoes, however.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I just don't understand the furor over end of game situations. I would absolutely rather players have a timeout to discuss the offensive set they want to run and potentially win a game. I'd also absolutely have my defense huddle and figure out who they should cover and defend that last shot. Who wants a game to end with a forced 3pt attempt or a dumb turnover? I don't understand why people think more entertaining play will come with less coaching. It is almost surely the opposite.

Because its excessive, that's why. I dont mind a TO or 2 during end-of-game situations but when coaches have horded all 4 timeouts and you are seeing 5, 6, 7 TO's called in the last few minutes (which happens more often that you think) and then add in all the fouling (which I am OK with), video reviews, and free TO for foul-outs, the most exciting part of the game is unwatchable for the casual fan, which the exact fan ESPN and college basketball is marketing to. They dont need us. They have us.

I remember the last 2 minutes of Baylor-OK took over 30 minutes 2 years ago. I know this because it was on directly before a Pitt game on ESPN on a Saturday. I couldn't watch Pitt live so I DVR'd ESPNews smartly because I knew the other other game would run long. Not all end of game situations are going to last a half hour but the last 2:00 can easily take 15-20 minutes which is far too long. I'm glad they are limiting TO's somewhat.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Yea, I dont care if a Pitt game takes 3 hours. The longer, the better, actually. But when I watch a non-Pitt game, the constant stoppages are annoying as heck, especially in the last 2 minutes


I guess its how you define blue blood. For me, the blue bloods will forever be only: UK, KU, Duke, UNC.

The next tier down is:

Arizona
UConn
Mich St
Syr
Florida
Louisville
Indiana
Ohio State
Wisconsin

Pitt is on the next list with:

Maryland
Nova
Gtown
Virginia
The entire Big 12 outside of KU, TT, TCU
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan
Iowa
Minnesota
ND
Oregon
Cincy
Memphis
Temple
etc
etc

You left out UCLA entirely. UConn has won 4 titles, FOUR! in the last 18 years. None a back to back fluke job like Florida had. They are blue bloods. Sorry. Indiana was.......... Louisville has been uber relevant the last 40-45 years and has had 3 National titles and countless final 4's, they are blue bloods. Michigan State and Arizona are next level.

Bluest of Blues:
Duke, UNC, KU, UK, Lville, UConn and UCLA even still. Though UCLA has become more like ND in football.

The immediate next level is:
Michigan State, Arizona, Syracuse, Florida and perhaps tOSU because they are giants.

Then I think you have some of the Big East teams like GTown, Nova, the Johnnies, and ACC teams like NC State, ND, UVa has made its way here, Pitt used to be here but looks to be falling back, Michigan, Illinois, Purdue and Maryland in the Big 10, Texas, OSU and OU in the Big 12, Oregon in the Pac 12, Gonzaga, and that is pretty much right now these "tiers". I am talking either recent historical, or current and size of programs.....VCU, Creighton, Wichita State and Butler are admirable, but are they sustainable?

 

[Zaratoughda]

I don't think we can be rated very high at all until we AT LEAST get to a Final Four.... and ideally a national championship. Until then we are kind of like Gonzaga... make a lot of noise in the regular season but then always a disappointment when it comes to the big dance.

Also, the last four seasons have not been all that impressive. Two years ago we blew out Colorado in the first round of the NCAA but then looked pretty flat against Florida the next game. Other than that and blowing out UNC in the ACCT a few games before that, has pretty much been nada the last four years.

Yeah, IMO this coming year will be a very important year for Dixon.... seeing which way he is going with the program. Almost a swim or sink situation.

 

[DT_PITT]

That's great. I am glad at least someone on this board admits that his team winning has some kind of effect on the enjoyment of a game.

This is completely disingenuous post. There is not a single poster who's comments who indicate otherwise. Not one.

 

[goalieman]

I actually like most of the new rules as listed in the original post .... they also expanded the restricted arc from 3' to 4'.

There is also to be renewed emphasis on the fouls called by officials .... handed checking especially on ball are to be called again as outlined by the rules set forth in the 2013-2014 season ..... players without the ball are to have greater freedom of movement, officials are to make sure screeners are stationary and not moving, fouls for excessive physicality in post play are to be called more tightly, etc.

They are trying to increase the pace of the game in some of these rule changes ...... the average attendance per game in NCAA Div I basketball has gone down EVERY year since 2007 .... this is evident at the Pete ..... they are trying to make the game more interesting to a broader range of fans. It will be interesting to see if the new rules help in that regard.

I see several posters predicting the new rules will hurt Pitt, I think some of the new rules may actually help Pitt and some others will not affect us anymore then it will affect others..... players and coaches will adjust to the new rules.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I have no doubt of the good intentions of the officials to enforce the defensive contact rules. However, i have no faith that it will continue beyond the early to mid-season. Officials already have too many other things to watch as it is. It might work if they assigned 4-5 officials to games with 1-2 assigned to solely watch and call that stuff.

As to the drop in attendance the cause for it is most likely not what people are ascribing it to--the slower pace of games. The reality is that in person attendance even in football is down. This is all due more to the proliferation of wide screen tvs and the proliferation of available games on tv coupled with the ever higher costs for tickets, parking, food etc incurred to attend live games being far outstripped by increases in most peoples disposable income.

So, IMHO, they are trying to fix a problem (dropping attendance) by a solution largely unrelated to its primary cause. If so, they will fail.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I have no doubt of the good intentions of the officials to enforce the defensive contact rules. However, i have no faith that it will continue beyond the early to mid-season. Officials already have too many other things to watch as it is. It might work if they assigned 4-5 officials to games with 1-2 assigned to solely watch and call that stuff.

As to the drop in attendance the cause for it is most likely not what people are ascribing it to--the slower pace of games. The reality is that in person attendance even in football is down. This is all due more to the proliferation of wide screen tvs and the proliferation of available games on tv coupled with the ever higher costs for tickets, parking, food etc incurred to attend live games being far outstripped by increases in most peoples disposable income.

So, IMHO, they are trying to fix a problem (dropping attendance) by a solution largely unrelated to its primary cause. If so, they will fail.

IMO, the effort to increase scoring, pace, and decrease timeouts/stoppages is 99% for TV ratings. The money is made with the TV network contracts. College basketball has to improve its appeal to casual sports fans and ESPN probably isnt happy with 54-51 games that take 2:20 to play. I'm sure they've had their input on this.

 

[goalieman]

I have no doubt of the good intentions of the officials to enforce the defensive contact rules. However, i have no faith that it will continue beyond the early to mid-season. Officials already have too many other things to watch as it is. It might work if they assigned 4-5 officials to games with 1-2 assigned to solely watch and call that stuff.

As to the drop in attendance the cause for it is most likely not what people are ascribing it to--the slower pace of games. The reality is that in person attendance even in football is down. This is all due more to the proliferation of wide screen tvs and the proliferation of available games on tv coupled with the ever higher costs for tickets, parking, food etc incurred to attend live games being far outstripped by increases in most peoples disposable income.

So, IMHO, they are trying to fix a problem (dropping attendance) by a solution largely unrelated to its primary cause. If so, they will fail.

1) I don't think 3 officials should have any problem calling the game as the rules are written in the rulebook which is really what they are trying to stress ..... officials already watch on ball contact, screens, and off ball movement, they just want them to continue to do that but call fouls as they are written in the rulebook ..... 3 officials should be able to do that without extra help.... you feel that they will need 4-5 officials to call the game the way the rules are written, I disagree.

2) I don't think the only thing they are trying to fix is dropping attendance and even if the new rules don't increase attendance, I think the new rules may make the game better.... getting rid of grabbing/holding off the ball, over physical play/fouling inside, hand checking, flopping, having fewer time-outs that disrupt momentum, 30 sec clock, etc. may just put a premium on coaching and players learning fundamentals and executing with precision .... you feel the new rules will hurt the game, I disagree.

3) Several posters including yourself continue to insist that the new rules will hurt Pitt as if we will no longer be able to compete at a high level ...... IMO some of the new rules may actually help Pitt and most will have little effect on our success .... players and coaches will adjust to the new rules and the teams with the best coaches and best players will likely be the best teams as is usually the case ..... the new rules won't kill us, poor recruiting might.

4) I'm excited to see how the new rules work and you seem to fear the new rules ..... and that's OK, each to his own ...... I know we both want Pitt to be successful no matter what the rules !

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

This is completely disingenuous post. There is not a single poster who's comments who indicate otherwise. Not one.

Oh BS. It is not disingenuous at all. We all have seen these posts where in reality, it is just about the wonderful experience in attending a college basketball game. Don't even effing go there.

 

[DT_PITT]

Oh BS. It is not disingenuous at all. We all have seen these posts where in reality, it is just about the wonderful experience in attending a college basketball game. Don't even effing go there.

Not BS in the least. Every poster wants the team to win. Every single one. But there are those who also enjoy the experience of attending a basketball game too. But everyone wants Pitt to win.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Not BS in the least. Every poster wants the team to win. Every single one. But there are those who also enjoy the experience of attending a basketball game too. But everyone wants Pitt to win.

I was just saying the poster was more "honest" that he doesn't care how it gets done, just that Pitt wins. And that is much more honest than most on here. I don't know how I am wrong or controversial on that statement. I think you are tremendously hypersensitive to anything I post. I think you need to relax, afterall this is just a fan message board, it is all pretty meaningless what we say in criticism and in compliments.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

The shot clock is nice, but the never ending timeouts and fouls to end otherwise really good games kill it for me more.

 

[pittdan77]

VA Tech has to be pretty happy about the shot clock.

 

[MrGee]

The shot clock is nice, but the never ending timeouts and fouls to end otherwise really good games kill it for me more.

Agree there, it's brutal--as far as the shot clock, I wonder what % of all the possessions in college bb last year went past 30 sec?---any guess?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Very few.

 

[DT_PITT]

I was just saying the poster was more "honest" that he doesn't care how it gets done, just that Pitt wins. And that is much more honest than most on here. I don't know how I am wrong or controversial on that statement. I think you are tremendously hypersensitive to anything I post. I think you need to relax, afterall this is just a fan message board, it is all pretty meaningless what we say in criticism and in compliments.

Oh the Irony!!

So ... Does this make me a group one, two, three or four poster?

Just checking.

 

[Zaratoughda]

What I think Dixon should do... is get the ball down the court faster by PASSING it down rather than letting someone dribble the ball down the court.... AND get into the offense early with 3 on 3s, 4 on 4s and the like. But, JD has not shown any disposition to do things along these lines.... more of a controlled offense.... so I don't expect it is gonna happen.