The globetrotters have opened up a 52-19 lead on the Washington generals, making Iowa's loss to gonzaga look very competitive.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
meanwhile, on CBS...
- Thread starter thewop
- Start date
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-basketball-popularity-declining-2012-3
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/950/Default.aspx
On the second one? In 2014 it was down to 3%.
The lure of College Basketball was amateur athletics. The closer to the pros it gets, the less people care.
I agree. Well, maybe 40+, anyway. I think I heard Huggie say KY probably has about 10 first-round picks and that there isn't even an NBA team that actually has 10 first-round picks. Kentucky would have to have a real off game and their opponent an unbelievably hot game to challenge them. It can happen. They're kids (sort of). But KY seems more focused now than any time during the year, the way they should be. They can smell the blood now. That's trouble for everybody. They're fun to watch, unless you're the opposing coach I suppose.
The first article is tripe. One and done? Do people ignore the fact that players were allowed to go straight to the NBA from HS for decades? They must. And the smarmy world of college athletics, again do they ignore the fact that recruiting has been questionable for decades? That cheating both on and off the court/field happened as often in the 50's as it does now? I don't buy the authors arguments at all.
If we want to get to the heart of the problem, let's talk about the games themselves. College ball is boring. Far too many games where both teams are in the 50's. Watching a 59-53 game every night bores people. The refereeing seems to be getting worse. That leads to coaches taking advantage of that and adapting their style to fit. Teams that are allowed to grab and push constantly will do so. What does that do to scoring?
I'd argue that if the game, on the court, got closer to the NBA, the popularity would go back up. As I stated in a thread in the Lounge, I miss the days when a game of 116-89 or 96-83 or 89-81 were normal and games of 68-63 were the exception. When scoring was up, the game was popular, with scoring down, the popularity lags. Fix the scoring issue and you fix how popular the game is.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Looking like the NBA would absolutely ruin college ball for me. ...can't stand the NBA.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
They beat Kansas by about 40. Also UCLA. When Kentucky is trying hard, nobody can be competitive with them.Originally posted by Guidotheguide:
They would probably beat UAB by 60.
West Virginia depends on fouling. They weren't getting away with it last night....not that it would have made a lot of difference.
On the other hand, the Wildcats barely escaped lesser teams on a few occasions.
I fully agree that officiating, and the coaching adaptations that occur because of it, is a big part of the problem. I also agree that the timeouts, all of the stoppages in play really, are another big part of the problem. I disagree that one and dones have much to do with the problem at all.
My biggest point is that, if you make the game more exciting, the fans, if they have really left, will come back. Watching teams like MSU mug the other team into submission is what is wrong with the college basketball. The fact that many teams do that as strategy is maddening.
My biggest point is that, if you make the game more exciting, the fans, if they have really left, will come back. Watching teams like MSU mug the other team into submission is what is wrong with the college basketball. The fact that many teams do that as strategy is maddening.
SSG T has simplified it about as much as we need to: "College ball is boring..." Right on. How many teams during the year scored fewer than 20 in a half? I think it was Rutgers vs Virginia, where Rutgers had maybe 26 FOR THE GAME. That's an exception and two teams very far apart in talent. But there are still way too many boring games due to lack of scoring. I look back in amazement at that Hawk team of '70, which went undefeated in the Big Ten and averaged right at 103 points in conf games. And that was before the rules favoring scoring--3 point, shot clock. Got to give KY some credit, though. Hate their recruiting or whatever. But they play ball. They pass, they run, they score, they play defense. Who wouldn't take those guys? And give Cal credit for not stumbling along the way (yet, anyway). They're just youngsters. When they're on top of their game, I've never seen better. And they play it the right way, for the most part. They face you up and beat you. They share the ball. They don't put a big butt in you down low and back you to the basket like a Magic or Kareem. What was defender to do? Stand still and get a foul, or move and give up a lay-up? Those were the choices. I like watching Kentucky, despite lop-sided scores. That's hardly their fault. It's up to the other teams to do something about it.
" I like watching Kentucky, despite lop-sided scores. That's hardly their fault. It's up to the other teams to do something about it.", disgrig
I guess every team should go out and find a bag man as good as World Wide Wes? And a coach that brags about being the path to the pros.
"And that was before the rules favoring scoring--3 point, shot clock.", disgrig
If I'm coaching defense there are things I like. Using the sideline and half court line as an extra man, and a shorter time clock so my guys don't have to defend for 35 seconds per possession.
Bowling is boring. A guy stands in one spot and from a viewers aspect it looks like he does the same thing over and over. A 3 point shot is boring. A guy shoots from behind a line and most likely is going to miss. Now, thanks to that line, good mid-range shooters who used to stun audiences with amazing accuracy are gone.
If they haven't the arm strength to hit threes, their shot is even called a bad shot!
This post was edited on 3/27 9:27 AM by DanL53
I guess every team should go out and find a bag man as good as World Wide Wes? And a coach that brags about being the path to the pros.
"And that was before the rules favoring scoring--3 point, shot clock.", disgrig
If I'm coaching defense there are things I like. Using the sideline and half court line as an extra man, and a shorter time clock so my guys don't have to defend for 35 seconds per possession.
Bowling is boring. A guy stands in one spot and from a viewers aspect it looks like he does the same thing over and over. A 3 point shot is boring. A guy shoots from behind a line and most likely is going to miss. Now, thanks to that line, good mid-range shooters who used to stun audiences with amazing accuracy are gone.
If they haven't the arm strength to hit threes, their shot is even called a bad shot!
This post was edited on 3/27 9:27 AM by DanL53
I agree and I have been watching the NIT a little bit this year and the 30second shot clock has sped up the game a little. But there are teams who race it across half court and still bleed it for 25 seconds. So I think its a step in the right direction.
Officiating and game stoppages need to get under control. We do not need a media time-out every 4 minutes? Seriously just have 2 per half. One at the under 14min mark and another at the under 6mark. if teams are too worn out, they can use one of their 5 time-outs they get. Also i wish they would have a review booth, instead of having the officials come over to the table to look a monitor. Just have someone in the truck looking at it, if its under review have them make the decision and go with it. Speed it up any way possible.
Last nights Kentucky/WVU game was a game where WVU got outclassed and the officials took them out of their game. Yes Kentucky is good, but WVU players were complaining and arguing with the officials because of all the fouls being called. Were some of them ticky tack fouls, probably. I knew within the first 4 minutes WVU was going to get blown out. Their body language and how they were acting was horrible.
The clock shot and bigger no-charge line changes being tried in the NIT help the flow of the game, and I expect both will be implemented soon. I hope someone can figure out how to end the clock stoppages for reviews and timeouts, because that can ruin good competitive games, especially when zebras are reviewing calls forever during the end of a game. I am not sure what can be done to eliminate the inconsistent officiating and officials allowing the non-stop hand checking taught by Izzo, Pitino, and some others. I also don't know what the NCAA/NBA can/will do to eliminate the NBA-prep schools from competing with the real college athletes. When the biggest story in college basketball is whether an "NBA" team can win all of its games against college teams, that is sad.
You have to remember that these NCAA games are being officiated by officials who don't normally work the teams. Meaning they are from different conferences. I think that plays a role in some of this, which i know it shouldn't. I mean a foul in the ACC should be the same as a foul in the BIG TEN. But there have been some inconsistencies in officiating this year. I don't know how you change it, that's not for me to decide. I figure the conference commissioners and Athletic Directors get paid thousands and thousands of dollars to make those decisions.
With last nights game specifically, the biggest problem is... you allow stuff like that all season then all of a sudden in the Sweet 16 you call everything? That's the consistency part. If they call all of that early in the year, and call it consistently, by mid-season the players and coaches have adapted. By tourney time you aren't seeing 25 fouls called in the first half of a game because the players understand what will and what won't be called.
That is the crux of the officiating issue, and the side impact of coaching philosophy. Whether we're talking traveling, palming, push-offs, hand checks, flagrant fouls for elbows, 3 second calls or whatever. If the rules are enforced as they are written, and enforced consistently, we don't have the bottled up lanes, we don't have guys getting mugged every time the touch the ball within 10 feet of the basket, we don't have guys taking 3 steps every drive to the basket, we don't have the defense man handling the offense on the perimeter. We end up with a freer game, with better flow. The needless TV timeouts every four minutes aren't as annoying (they ain't getting rid of those) because there isn't near the stoppage for other reasons.
For the coaching part, if you know your guy won't be called for having two hands on the opponent (a foul per rule 10, Sect. 1 Art. 4 sub-para b.) why would you not have him do it. If you know that your player won't be called for holding, displacing, pushing, charging, tripping or impeding the progress of an opponent by extending arms, shoulders, hips or knees or by bending his own body into other than normal position or by using any unreasonably rough tactics (Rule 10, Sec 1, Art 1) you're going to take advantage of that. Far too many teams play a modified version of football on the court, and they do so because a) the coaches know the refs won't call everything and b) the refs won't call everything.
I highly suggest people go, look up the basketball rule book (it's available for download on the NCAA site) and see what it actually says. Because I see things that are not called fouls done on every trip down the court that are actually in the rules as fouls, both offensively and defensively.
As I've said, clean up the game, let it flow better and the game will be more exciting and the fans will come back. It won't matter if there are 20 one and dones, 400 transfers or 10 coaches/institutions on probation. Fix the game on the court and people will watch it.
I agree with your post and yes I know the rule book states several rules that don't get called. I have a buddy who officiates HS basketball and some small school college ball. He goes to these clinics every year in Chicago, St Louis and what not. When we are watching a basketball game I will screaming that there should of been a foul called or an illegal screen called and he just laughs at me.
His mindset when he officiates is, "advantages" if a player is gaining a distinct advantage, then he will blow the whistle and call a foul. If there is no advantage, then he lets it go. He told me he sat in listening to a Div 1 officials speak at one of the clinics and he stated that very same thing. He said that if we call 20-30 fouls a half, fans will be irate and think that you are trying to steal the show. He talked about the "let them play" mentality of coaches/fans. Basically the rule book is a guide, but that you do not follow it 100%. So he alway talks about who had the advantage when they blew the whistle. Last night in the Wisky game Gasser could not believe he got called for a foul on a rebound late in the game. I thought he didn't do anything wrong, but my buddy said, "he grabbed his arm while the ball was in the air" he had the advantage and therefor its a foul. if he would of grabbed and let go quickly, he would of let it go, but he held on for about 2-3 seconds maybe.
Its like the blocking foul, I mean these guys are playing defense and moving their feet and the offensive player gets bailed out because they initiate the contact. I think if they are moving their feet and their hands are up, its a no call. He agrees with me on that, but he says a lot of times the defender will hip check or try and get their legs out there so they can't go around. That's an advantage for the defender and that's why they get called.
I compare it to football in a sense that yeah the officials could call Holding on every play. I mean it happens at all levels, but if it had no impact on the play, why call it? I mean if the play is run to the right side of the field and the WR all the way over on the left side holds the CB, what does that have to do with the play? Nothing?
I just think its something that is too difficult to change. Everyone has their own perception of the rules and if these guys are getting told to officiate this way, well it isn't going to change. Its going to be the same no matter what you enforce.
They should allow them to enter the NBA Draft out of High School. They don't want to attend college for education and the super star HS kids are only playing in college because they have to one year. Its stupid. let them go right away and stop taking money from kids that want to attend college and play college ball but will probley not make the NBA. Or at least are not ready for the NBA until they play college.
Similar threads
