Paul Zeise...

[MajorMajors]

Paul Zeise had some interesting discussion tonight about the game of college basketball. The basis for his discussion was the Seth Davis SI article and Seth's recommendations for changes to improve the college game. PZ talked about shortening the shot clock - Zeise prefers going to 24 seconds vs. going to 30 seconds. Other topics were making the lane wider, the three point-line deeper, and allowing fewer time-outs. Zeise's opinion is that the charge call should be eliminated from the game...

A point PZ made was that college coaches resist changes because they don't want to relinquish control - they want to be able to micro-manage the game (not to mention any names...).

When he was talking about playing fast on offense - he even mentioned that Pitt Coach Suzie McConnell Serio is a coach who coaches aggressive offense. A nice mention for Pitt.

Anyway, I really grew tired of the other FAN talkers, but I enjoy listening to PZ in the evenings now. PZ comes across as not trying to impress you with how slick he is, or how tough he is, he just talks sports like someone who knows a bit about what he's talking about...

Go Pitt.

 

[DT_PITT]

I like Paul Zeise ...

... I think he really knows what he talking about when it comes to basketball, and isn't worried about being cool on the air. This makes up 90% of what I think about what he has to say about Hoops.

However, Paul's opinion about Hoops (and Pitt and Dixon) is often somewhat biased by the notion of hating defensive basketball. He just doesn't believe in it -- not just the notion of micromanagement by coaches. He's hated it for some time, and hated the scores Howland brought to the Final Four in 2005, etc. One of his comments at the time was that Final Four games shouldn't be ugly and should have scores in the 80's. And in the past, anytime Dixon -- or any coach for that matter -- calls a timeout to draw up a play, he seems to think of this as micromanagement.

I'm not saying Paul is right or wrong in his notion. However, Paul does tend to always explain things through this filter, as if it IS right (not just a preference). Like I said, this does add some bias to his sense of objectivity.

Also, this was the guy who voted three times for Penn State in his top 25 earlier in the season. This alone makes him at least a little bit suspect.
This post was edited on 3/3 10:52 PM by DT_PITT

 

[Fredact]

Those comments by Zeiss pretty much summed up his lack of understanding of the college game. He really has little understanding of how the game is played, and his wanting it to be like the NBA proves his knowledge is only superficial.

 

[Protes]

The shot clock should be reduced to at least 30 seconds and the 3-point line needs to be moved back some. In fact, I think the latter would help speed up the game in and of itself by creating space and more opportunity for open shots.

 

[bwh05]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

I've caught him discussing college basketball's move toward coaching micromanaging the game and the lack of offensive creativity on air a couple times and I agree with him on all points. I know we were just as guilty at times in the past, but I can't stand watching UVA games and the scores keep getting lower and lower annually. I hope the shot clock gets coaches to think more about scoring than getting the perfect shot every time down like its the movie Hoosiers.

 

[DT_PITT]

A lot of people agree with him ...

... not just you. But even if it's what he'd like to see, it's NOT what is. And that's what I think clouds Zeise's judgment to some extent.

Personally, I like to see well coached teams who execute well, regardless of they execute well on offense, defense or both.

And personally, I love watching UVA because their defensive execution is amazing at times.

To each their own -- but like I said -- what Paul "likes" clouds his objectivity.

 

[goalieman]

I'd like to see a 30 second clock, the no charge circle enlarged, and one less time out per game.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Shorter shot clock favors defensive teams.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

- I really hope they don't shorten the shot clock. These teams are having a hard enough time scoring in 35 seconds. So, the rocket scientists out there are saying, "I have an idea, lets give them LESS time to be able to find an open shot." Tony Bennett is probably salivating at this. His teams have to defend for 5 less seconds each time. Though, I think the argument for the shorter shot clock is though FG% will go down, points will go up because the amount of possessions will go up. I don't buy that. I think the data shows scoring has gone down from the late no-shot clock era to the 45 second and now the 35 second clock. The other argument is that the shorter clock will incent coaches to "coach offense." I don't buy that either. Leave it at 35. If it goes to 24, we might as well watch the NBA.

- the wider lane, I dont care about, whatever.

- deeper 3 point line: I think it should probably be 22 feet (the shorter NBA line that was used for 1 year in the 90s before it went back to the longer line), but that's not a main concern of mine.

- if you want more offense, you have to get rid of the charge. Simply get rid of the play. Standing there and getting run over is not good defense. Its stupid. If you want to play good defense, jump in the air and block the freaking shot. Dont just stand there, hoping to get run over. I would make it so that a charge could not be called in the 3 second lane.

 

[wolf0717]

They asked Julius Page on a pre game show if the 30 second clock would lead to more offense. He said no because teams would start picking the player bringing the ball up the court earlier and teams would have a limited time to get into their offense. See logical to me.

 

[Harve74]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

I like to watch aggressive basketball, with teams running when it is available, but I REALLY do not want college basketball to turn into a spectacle like AAU ball, which resembles a track meet combined with an "And-One" exhibition.

I think a big problem with scoring is a lack of fundamentals. Instead of making a good, solid play leading to an easy basket, every player has to demonstrate his flash. The showmanship of the AAU games has made its way into even high school games. Recently I watched a high school playoff game where both teams had several turnovers caused by nothing other than pure show-boating, players being called for travelling doing spin moves, losing the ball going between their legs for no good reason, etc. Newkirk lost the ball in the crucial end game going between his legs.

I also take a different point of view in moving back the three point shot. I think the trey is a big part of the problem because it has eliminated mid-range shooting as a valued skill. Statisticians call it the most worthless shot a player can take. And statistics are controlling the direction of the game.

The trey rewards passing the ball away from the basket, which runs counter to basic tenet of the game for decades, i.e., always move the ball closer to the hoop.

The transformation of the NBA game into offenses based on PG's attacking the rim and perimeter passes for treys is NOT a trend colleges should embrace. The Spurs and LeBron's Heat teams made spacing and precise perimeter passing almost an art form, but frankly, few teams have the talent to excell in that style.

I don't have an answer but playing NBA style with lesser skilled players is not the solution. There is nothing inherently better or more exciting about a score of 80-78 than a score of 55-53. In fact, higher scores actually devalue each scoring play that was made.

Maybe Seth should remember that in the days when the ABA first introduced the 3-pt shot and pro basketball games frequently had scores with both teams at 110 or 120 points, nobody watched them. Even today many fans disrespect the NBA because "Nobody plays defense."

I've got another reason for the decline of offense but I will post it as a separate thread because it may deserve more than being buried at the end of this thread.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't have an answer but playing NBA style with lesser skilled players is not the solution. There is nothing inherently better or more exciting about a score of 80-78 than a score of 55-53. In fact, higher scores actually devalue each scoring play that was made.

Bingo! Part of the reason I can't watch the NBA are that there are so many possessions, that each possession is "worth" far less. In college basketball, you have to be on your game for 40 minutes for the most part. An 8-0, a 12-2 run can decide a game. In the NBA, there's so many possessions that that 8-0 run in the 1st quarter doesn't mean as much.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by DT_PITT:
... I think he really knows what he talking about when it comes to basketball, and isn't worried about being cool on the air. This makes up 90% of what I think about what he has to say about Hoops.

However, Paul's opinion about Hoops (and Pitt and Dixon) is often somewhat biased by the notion of hating defensive basketball. He just doesn't believe in it -- not just the notion of micromanagement by coaches. He's hated it for some time, and hated the scores Howland brought to the Final Four in 2005, etc. One of his comments at the time was that Final Four games shouldn't be ugly and should have scores in the 80's. And in the past, anytime Dixon -- or any coach for that matter -- calls a timeout to draw up a play, he seems to think of this as micromanagement.

I'm not saying Paul is right or wrong in his notion. However, Paul does tend to always explain things through this filter, as if it IS right (not just a preference). Like I said, this does add some bias to his sense of objectivity.

Also, this was the guy who voted three times for Penn State in his top 25 earlier in the season. This alone makes him at least a little bit suspect.

This post was edited on 3/3 10:52 PM by DT_PITT

Again, when you vote.....you aren't voting for how the teams will finish, you are voting at the moment, current state. So.....let's forget this and I trust Zeise is the best basketball centric journalist in town and I would take his take over most on this board, especially because some are too invested in the local college team. Ahem.,....

Anyways......I love the idea about reducing TO's. Coaches, Jamie in particular, seems compelled to inject themselves into the flow of the game way too much. With the under 16, 12, 8, and 4 minute TO's, that is 4 stoppages each half that function as TO's. It would also stop the ridiculous end of game shenanigans where a team is down by 14 with 30 seconds left and they are calling a TO after their team cuts it to 12 with 27 seconds left. I know coaches are using this as "teaching moments" being the game slots for 2 TV are 2 hour windows, they impede too much into other games, but again, too many TO's give coaches too much of a chance to mess up a nreally nice game.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by Fredact:
Those comments by Zeiss pretty much summed up his lack of understanding of the college game. He really has little understanding of how the game is played, and his wanting it to be like the NBA proves his knowledge is only superficial.

And can you please explain to us how the college game is played? I am really interest and I guess I don't understand. Please, help a brother out and explain how this game is played. I guess I am missing something.

 

[levance2]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't have an answer but playing NBA style with lesser skilled players is not the solution. There is nothing inherently better or more exciting about a score of 80-78 than a score of 55-53. In fact, higher scores actually devalue each scoring play that was made.

Maybe Seth should remember that in the days when the ABA first introduced the 3-pt shot and pro basketball games frequently had scores with both teams at 110 or 120 points, nobody watched them. Even today many fans disrespect the NBA because "Nobody plays defense."

I think it is pretty strange that basketball seems like the #1 sport people equate scoring with good play. If a defense causes a turnover or bad shot, it is almost solely attributed to poor offense, rather than good defense. It happens in other sports too, but (other than the NHL) we don't see sports trying to modify rules to increase scoring.

How is it that 90% of the world is obsessed with soccer where you can win 1-0 after hours of play, but the entire sports media complex here is deriding a hard fought 55-50 score in basketball?

I have only listened to Zeise a few times recently, but I think he's really terrible. As DT said, he's got his mind made up. He's going to go on the same rants about his sports philosophy regardless of what Pitt or any other team does.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Re: A lot of people agree with him ...

Originally posted by DT_PITT:
... not just you. But even if it's what he'd like to see, it's NOT what is. And that's what I think clouds Zeise's judgment to some extent.

Personally, I like to see well coached teams who execute well, regardless of they execute well on offense, defense or both.

And personally, I love watching UVA because their defensive execution is amazing at times.

To each their own -- but like I said -- what Paul "likes" clouds his objectivity.

So you like more the coaching, micromanaging of every situation moreso the beauty of the natural talent? You know when I really enjoy watching college basketball, in particularly Pitt play? When they are flowing on offense. I don't like selfishness, but I also don't think quick shots in the shot clock are selfish. Say the first Syracuse game IMO was much more enjoyable than the second Syracuse game.

And I am not an advocate of a 24 second clock and really am torn if a 30 second clock actually will help bad offensive teams. I think a team that is aggressive on the offensive end and defensive end is fun to watch. A team that is passive on both ends is boring. And mind you that you can be really good defensively and be "passive" on defense.

As for the shot clock, I know the Paul Evans glory days there was no clock and Pitt averaged 90 points a game. Problem, they gave up 91 points a game. But it sure was fun. But I do get desensitized to basketball when the points for both teams get into that range. I think an 80-75 score is optimal. But I also think there are way too many scores in the 50's and low 60's.

But it goes beyond the rules. Look at the HS games, Scores and scoring is down. There is so much more emphasis on defense (like in most sports) and that is not always a good thing. Coaches feel compelled to rule and impose their will on every possession. I guess when you pay them millions of dollars, they feel compelled to work hard and do their job. But it is to the detriment of the game. And sports are copycat, so when they see the big time college coaches act like this, it filters down to HS, which filters down to Jr High and Pee Wee, and kids are learning defensive positioning and boxing out moreso than they are learning basic skills like shooting the basketball.

And then there is this......WHEN DID PITT START TO REALLY JELL OFFENSIVELY? Answer? When they stopped being afraid of the mid range jumper. I think the loss of the mid range jumper has hurt college basketball. It is either dunk/layup or 3 pointer.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Re: A lot of people agree with him ...

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

Originally posted by DT_PITT:
... not just you. But even if it's what he'd like to see, it's NOT what is. And that's what I think clouds Zeise's judgment to some extent.

Personally, I like to see well coached teams who execute well, regardless of they execute well on offense, defense or both.

And personally, I love watching UVA because their defensive execution is amazing at times.

To each their own -- but like I said -- what Paul "likes" clouds his objectivity.

So you like more the coaching, micromanaging of every situation moreso the beauty of the natural talent? You know when I really enjoy watching college basketball, in particularly Pitt play? When they are flowing on offense. I don't like selfishness, but I also don't think quick shots in the shot clock are selfish. Say the first Syracuse game IMO was much more enjoyable than the second Syracuse game.

And I am not an advocate of a 24 second clock and really am torn if a 30 second clock actually will help bad offensive teams. I think a team that is aggressive on the offensive end and defensive end is fun to watch. A team that is passive on both ends is boring. And mind you that you can be really good defensively and be "passive" on defense.

As for the shot clock, I know the Paul Evans glory days there was no clock and Pitt averaged 90 points a game. Problem, they gave up 91 points a game. But it sure was fun. But I do get desensitized to basketball when the points for both teams get into that range. I think an 80-75 score is optimal. But I also think there are way too many scores in the 50's and low 60's.

But it goes beyond the rules. Look at the HS games, Scores and scoring is down. There is so much more emphasis on defense (like in most sports) and that is not always a good thing. Coaches feel compelled to rule and impose their will on every possession. I guess when you pay them millions of dollars, they feel compelled to work hard and do their job. But it is to the detriment of the game. And sports are copycat, so when they see the big time college coaches act like this, it filters down to HS, which filters down to Jr High and Pee Wee, and kids are learning defensive positioning and boxing out moreso than they are learning basic skills like shooting the basketball.

And then there is this......WHEN DID PITT START TO REALLY JELL OFFENSIVELY? Answer? When they stopped being afraid of the mid range jumper. I think the loss of the mid range jumper has hurt college basketball. It is either dunk/layup or 3 pointer.

Yeah..I agree that Pitt is funner to watch when they are making shots.

But..as has been pointed out repeatedly... even in our big wins- UNC, Cuse, etc... the pace was unchanged.
Perception of flow changed since we were making shots....but the actual flow was unchanged.

Let me put it this way...there's a reason why the #1 and #2 teams in the country are also the #1 and #2 ranked defenses.

The goal is to score more than your opponent.

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

I'm a big proponent of the fewer time outs agenda Zeise was pushing. Also a big proponent of no timeouts during live play.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Harve,

I agree with most of what you say--

I also like to watch aggressive basketball, with teams running when it is available. But "when it is available" is the key. The problem is that college players (most anyway) are not NBA talent and if you get too offensively aggressive you get total sloppiness with turnovers galore. Some may love that kind of basketball not caring about execution and precision so long as the game is fast with plenty of dunks. To each his own, but to me that is truly ugly and after a few minutes becomes boring basketball. Going that route would only further increase the importance of recruiting over coaching. The blue bloods of basketball would become even more dominant with everyone else (including Pitt) locked into always being behind.with rarely having a chance for an upset. This would be nice if you are a Kentucky or Duke fan--but not if you are a Pitt fan.

You and SMF also have it right, IMO, about the effect of AAU ball and the relatively close in 3-point line in eliminating the mid-range game. It has caused the game to devolve into shooting threes and dunking and very few "un-sexy" 2 point jumpers and "long layups." This has resulted in players who are "specialists" at 3's or dunking but very few players with a complete repertoire of shooting skills.

Regarding the charge, I have another point of view. Why not go back to the old-old charge rules. Up through at least the early 1960's ( I am not sure when the rule was changed) the rule was that if a player released his shot and the shot subsequently went in and he "charged" after releasing the ball the basket was counted (not waived off as it is today) and the charge foul assessed after the made basket. This would help scoring and help bring back the mid-range game, IMHO. Back when this was the rule I think part of the reason for its elimination was that it slowed the game because every foul, offensive or defensive, led to shooting free throws--not just after 6 fouls in a half. This would no longer be a factor. It also would focus officials on calling something rather than "just letting them play" when there is contact on drives to the hoop. They would be more inclined to need to call something when there is significant contact--either an offensive or a defensive foul. An added bonus in doing this might be slightly increased scoring. Just a thought from an old-timer.


This post was edited on 3/4 9:15 AM by DC_Area_Panther

 

[DT_PITT]

Re: A lot of people agree with him ...


"So you like more the coaching, micromanaging of every situation moreso the beauty of the natural talent?"

Holy strawman!

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by DC_Area_Panther:


You and SMF also have it right, IMO, about the effect of AAU ball and the relatively close in 3-point line in eliminating the mid-range game. It has caused the game to devolve into shooting threes and dunking and very few "un-sexy" 2 point jumpers and "long layups." This has resulted in players who are "specialists" at 3's or dunking but very few players with a complete repertoire of shooting skills.





This post was edited on 3/4 9:15 AM by DC_Area_Panther

The statistics show that the mid range jumper is the lease efficient offensive choice. That is why it is disappearing.

 

[DT_PITT]

I agree with both of these ideas ....

.... knowing that TV timeouts are never going away, I think I would go to 4 timeouts a game (with a use it our lose it in the first half), but all timeouts would be 30 seconds (instead of the one one-minute timeout coaches get).

I'm not sure though, that I would get rid of timeouts during live play (have to think about that), but I know that I wouldn't let coaches call timeouts during live play.

 

[GENAC]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by levance2:

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't have an answer but playing NBA style with lesser skilled players is not the solution. There is nothing inherently better or more exciting about a score of 80-78 than a score of 55-53. In fact, higher scores actually devalue each scoring play that was made.

Maybe Seth should remember that in the days when the ABA first introduced the 3-pt shot and pro basketball games frequently had scores with both teams at 110 or 120 points, nobody watched them. Even today many fans disrespect the NBA because "Nobody plays defense."

It happens in other sports too, but (other than the NHL) we don't see sports trying to modify rules to increase scoring.

How is it that 90% of the world is obsessed with soccer where you can win 1-0 after hours of play, but the entire sports media complex here is deriding a hard fought 55-50 score in basketball?

I have only listened to Zeise a few times recently, but I think he's really terrible. As DT said, he's got his mind made up. He's going to go on the same rants about his sports philosophy regardless of what Pitt or any other team does.

What?

Baseball installed a designated hitter in one league, lowered the mound, and is considering more radical changes like banning defensive shifts to stop scoring.

Football has narrowed the hash marks, made receivers and quarterbacks untouchable, never calls offensive pass interference, allows offense to run plays before the defense can even set up, and etc.

This isn't just a basketball and hockey thing. It's a problem with all American sports. Scoring leads to better ratings.

 

[levance2]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by GENAC:

Originally posted by levance2:

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't have an answer but playing NBA style with lesser skilled players is not the solution. There is nothing inherently better or more exciting about a score of 80-78 than a score of 55-53. In fact, higher scores actually devalue each scoring play that was made.

Maybe Seth should remember that in the days when the ABA first introduced the 3-pt shot and pro basketball games frequently had scores with both teams at 110 or 120 points, nobody watched them. Even today many fans disrespect the NBA because "Nobody plays defense."

It happens in other sports too, but (other than the NHL) we don't see sports trying to modify rules to increase scoring.

How is it that 90% of the world is obsessed with soccer where you can win 1-0 after hours of play, but the entire sports media complex here is deriding a hard fought 55-50 score in basketball?

I have only listened to Zeise a few times recently, but I think he's really terrible. As DT said, he's got his mind made up. He's going to go on the same rants about his sports philosophy regardless of what Pitt or any other team does.

What?

Baseball installed a designated hitter in one league, lowered the mound, and is considering more radical changes like banning defensive shifts to stop scoring.

Football has narrowed the hash marks, made receivers and quarterbacks untouchable, never calls offensive pass interference, allows offense to run plays before the defense can even set up, and etc.

This isn't just a basketball and hockey thing. It's a problem with all American sports. Scoring leads to better ratings.

There's a difference between keeping the balance of play (lowering the mound) and increasing scoring. I read a long article recently about how lots of people in basketball at various times advocated raising the height of the basket in response to the increase in player height, and the feeling that the dunk was a terrible development for the sport.

What we're in the middle of now is the natural rubber band effect of coaches understanding that it is a lot easier to stop a couple more baskets per game than score a couple. Coaches, players, and fans want to WIN more than they care about anything else. If you can WIN by playing good defense, then you'll be successful. Are UVa fans whining all year about how boring their team is?

If MLB batters started hitting .400 with regularity, you are suggesting that would be good for the game? I don't see any reason that we should institute changes so that shooting percentages go up. Why not make the hoop bigger? The ball smaller? It will help the scoring!

The reason these rules have changed in other sports is that there has to be a balance between offense and defense. I honestly don't see how the current state of college basketball is imbalanced. What the ESPN talking heads want is to push the imbalance in favor of the offense. They want these games to be 90-80 slugfests with dunks on every other possession, because that's what Joe Blow with no rooting interest will be amused by.

As someone else noted, if we left the rules up to the least common denominator, we'd be showing And-1 contests rather than disciplined team basketball.

Hell, a lot of people watch The Walking Dead every week. Maybe what the NCAA needs are some zombies in the game.

 

[Harve74]

Re: A lot of people agree with him ...

I'm not sure there is a whole lot of "beauty of natural talent" around.

As far as scoring being down in high school games, I'm not sure I blame coaches and defensive style play for that. I used to go to a ton of high school games, particularly in the WPIAL and PIAA playoffs. My high school went to the PIAA finals twice and I saw a couple other state title games. Scores in the 40's and 50's in playoff games were fairly common.

My son played and his team was low scoring but more from lack of talent than a defensive style.

I recently posted about watching the Farrell-Kennedy Catholic District 10 final. The score was 48-46 but, again, not because of any slowdown. Both teams tried to run. They just were bad. I never saw so many passes just fly untouched into the stands or across the endline. I watched kids lose the ball or be called for travelling trying spin moves when they could barely dribble penetrate anyway. Likewise dribbling between their legs for no reason.

The most productive three point shooter released the ball from his waist, like an 8 year old girl. He wasn't small or weak. He just apparently didn't know any better.

As I said in my post then, somewhere Eddie McCluskey is rolling over in his grave. The talent or the coaching or both has REALLY dropped off.

I agree 100% about the absence of the mid-range jumper. A lot of fundamentals just have gone away. Kids clearly have athleticism, just not technique. They keep trying moves they have seen on TV instead of just making a simple, effective move or shot. I think that's a big reason there is more micromanaging and less "beauty of natural talent."

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Re: I like Paul Zeise ...

Originally posted by levance2:


The reason these rules have changed in other sports is that there has to be a balance between offense and defense. I honestly don't see how the current state of college basketball is imbalanced. What the ESPN talking heads want is to push the imbalance in favor of the offense. They want these games to be 90-80 slugfests with dunks on every other possession, because that's what Joe Blow with no rooting interest will be amused by.

As someone else noted, if we left the rules up to the least common denominator, we'd be showing And-1 contests rather than disciplined team basketball.

Hell, a lot of people watch The Walking Dead every week. Maybe what the NCAA needs are some zombies in the game.

I agree. A shorter shot clock and you have an NBA game played by players who aren't anywhere near as skilled. ESPN is really pushing for this (and even most coaches want it) but I don't know why Joe Blow fan wouldn't just flip no an NBA game instead. I'd rather watch NBA players play NBA basketball than college players doing it. Heck, why not just watch the D-league if you want to see lesser players play an NBA style?

The shorter shot clock to increase scoring just seems crazy to me.

 

[braves2121]

The whole idea of reducing the shot clock to increase scoring baffles me. I could care less if it adds 8 points/game, I don't care whether teams score 70 or 62 points. What matters is the gameplay and the excitement.

They need to focus on improving the flow of the game, which means less physical hacking, less bogus charge calls, and most importantly - less timeouts and solving the end of game problem. The #1 complaint I hear from casual basketball fans is how the end of games are ruined because of all the fouling and how it takes an eternity for a close game to finish. That is why I proposed a few weeks ago that the 1 and 1 should be eliminated and you shoot two at 7 fouls, and at 10 fouls its two shots and the ball. They need to say goodbye to the final 60 seconds taking 12 minutes to finish and put everyone out of their misery.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Some people in this thread might not know this.....

but women's college basketball uses a 30 second shot clock with what are certainly lesser skilled players, and yet somehow teams manage to occasionally have offensive possessions that don't end in shot clock violations.

The notion that a 30 second shot clock will greatly reduce offensive efficiency is absurd. The effect will be so small that the casual fan won't even notice the difference unless someone points it out to them.

 

[DT_PITT]

The end of the game stuff ...


... here's what's kind of funny to me. Fouling at the end of the game has become so ingrained that I've almost forgotten how tiresome it is.

I guess the biggest problem I have with it is that fouling in the last minute becomes "a whole new game." It's not basketball anymore -- it's fouling and foul shots.

Somewhere in this is the notion that perhaps an intentional foul should be an intentional foul.

On the other end, with 10 seconds to go and up three, a coach can scream to his team "we are going to foul!" But that's not an intentional foul. I get why that is, but there does seem to be a problem there.

Awarding two shots and the ball would seem to solve some of that problem.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Re: The end of the game stuff ...

Originally posted by DT_PITT:


... here's what's kind of funny to me. Fouling at the end of the game has become so ingrained that I've almost forgotten how tiresome it is.

I guess the biggest problem I have with it is that fouling in the last minute becomes "a whole new game." It's not basketball anymore -- it's fouling and foul shots.

Somewhere in this is the notion that perhaps an intentional foul should be an intentional foul.

On the other end, with 10 seconds to go and up three, a coach can scream to his team "we are going to foul!" But that's not an intentional foul. I get why that is, but there does seem to be a problem there.

Awarding two shots and the ball would seem to solve some of that problem.

Am I crazy or didnt the NCAA try to solve this about 15 years ago and allowed the team that was fouled to have the choice of whether to shoot foul shots or to take the ball out of bounds again? I could have sworn that happened for 1 season then everybody hated it.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by braves2121:
The whole idea of reducing the shot clock to increase scoring baffles me. I could care less if it adds 8 points/game, I don't care whether teams score 70 or 62 points. What matters is the gameplay and the excitement.

They need to focus on improving the flow of the game, which means less physical hacking, less bogus charge calls, and most importantly - less timeouts and solving the end of game problem. The #1 complaint I hear from casual basketball fans is how the end of games are ruined because of all the fouling and how it takes an eternity for a close game to finish. That is why I proposed a few weeks ago that the 1 and 1 should be eliminated and you shoot two at 7 fouls, and at 10 fouls its two shots and the ball. They need to say goodbye to the final 60 seconds taking 12 minutes to finish and put everyone out of their misery.

A few things.

1) I agree with less hacking........but you call it close, then it is more choppy, more foul shots so it is tough to do the right thing.

2) I hate the charge/block. In my mind, 50% of the charge/block calls should be no calls. Unless it is egregious, just stop blowing the whistle if someone falls down. Guys sometimes get to the same point at the same time. NO CALL! Let em play. Also, then move the charge circle out another foot.

3) End of game. I understand the strategy. My issue is these coaches who just have to coach, and no that last minute they have no chance yet are using this as a defacto end of game practice, where they are fouling, putting guys on the line, fouling and it is a double digit lead with 40 some seconds left. Sure, miracles happen. But come on. I would make it at the 13th foul, it is 2 shots and the ball. That will put an end to the ridiculousness.

 

[UPitt '89]

Simple solution.

Any fouls in the final 2 minutes.... it is two shots *OR* one shot and the ball. Let the fouled team decide.

Personally.... if a poor FT shooter like Cam or Jeter gets fouled.... I'd rather take one shot and get the ball than take two shots.

Heck... even with a good FT shooter.... If I am up and they foul my team... I take the one shot and the ball. Let them try to steal the inbounds - harder to do that than to rebound a missed FT.

 

[pittman71]

basically he wants the type of basketball you see in pickup games. Emphasis only on scoring/shooters and scoring quick, NBA and college basketball used to be like that, a long long time ago.

btw a no charge rule would be insane

 

[Parkview57]

Yeah, no charge and while their at it how about eliminating the need to dribble....that should boost scoring..

 

[pittman71]

Originally posted by Parkview57:
Yeah, no charge and while their at it how about eliminating the need to dribble....that should boost scoring..

lmao

 

[pittman71]

limiting timeouts is a must, too many timeouts for coaches to use

 

[Harve74]

Re: Paul Zeise ...

DT,

I have the opposite opinion on Zeise. I don't like him. Don't think he's knowledgeable about much of anything.

I disagree with almost everything he says and he just seems as arrogant as 'Poni to me.

Different strokes, I guess.