Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The clock was reduced from 35 to 30 seconds, not 45 to 30 seconds. And no, the article did not say the change had "less to do with scoring and more with stalling efforts." Reducing the shot clock would have zero effect on stalling. Reducing the number of timeouts, sure, but the shot clock adjustments are meant to have an impact on live play.
Innovation matters. As Bomani Jones says in the video I posted earlier, coaches tend to be the constant in college basketball, and they tend to run the same systems year in, year out. There's nothing forcing them to change. The NBA, on the other hand, has changed dramatically since the Starbury/Iverson days, and the name of the game has been innovate or perish. The NBA is always bringing something fresh to the table whether it's Stretch 4s and 5s, Eurostepping, Thibodeau's help side defense, whiplash ball movement, etc.
College football is exciting because you'll have a guy like Chip Kelly at Oregon who employed the HUNH offense. There's always something different to look forward to. In college basketball, it's the same thing every year with offenses force feeding the post or making meaningless passes around the perimeter before jacking a 3. If seeing the Cameron Crazies bounce up and down is your thing, then so be it, but the product on the court is inferior to the NBA in every way imaginable. In college football, the talent may be inferior, but the schematics certainly aren't, and you'll see little wrinkles of college football schemes in NFL games all the time.
Some where we're just not on the same page with this shot clock reduction. You said scoring wasn't what it should be. Then you brought up the shot clock being in fact reduced, the past 25 years or so. The game is not perfect. Every major team sport in this country is plagued with issues on and off the court/field. Innovation from coaches has nothing to do with anything. Coaches utilize what works vs doesn't work. They aren't going to fix what works. College football changing is an apples-oranges comparison to whether anything should change in a different sport. And many people loathe what has occurred in college football, with a lack of legitimate defense being played in a good proportion of the games. This all just sounds indicative of the person who shows up in the 4th inning of a 0-0 baseball game, and states "oh thank goodness, I didn't miss anything."
Apparently, it wasn't that high of a hurdle for Memphis and Louisville. All that was required was a willingness to brazenly violate NCAA rules.
Memphis and Louisville have how many championships in the last 30 years? Oh that’s right...ZERO as Louisville’s 2013 title was vacated. Pure dominance.
Quote:
Most college coaches aren't at elite programs. I mean, how hard is it to have consecutive 20+ win seasons and deep tournament runs every other year when you have direct access to the best players in the country? Nick Saban once said he'd never return to the NFL because he could only sign one first rounder a year at the pro level whereas he could sign 10-11 first round talents a year at Alabama. The same is true of college basketball where the Coach Ks and Roy Williams' of the world simply get to re-load with McDonald's All-Americans each year.
And most NBA coaches don’t have resumes like Popovich or Phil Jackson who have combined to win 14 of the last 26 titles. People could easily say - well how hard is it to win titles when you coach Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Parker, Kawhi, Ginobili, etc. If being elite at either level is easy...go do it.
Quote:
Let's be precise with our use of language here. You have a tendency to create strawmen. Nobody said building an elite program is "relatively easy." I said that Brad Stevens' achievements in Boston are arguably more impressive than Coach K's because he's stuck with the players the front office can get him. He just can't out and get the No. 1, 2 and 3 players in the League, which is what Coach K will have at Duke next year having signed the Top 3 All-Americans out of HS.
Coach K being far more accomplished doesn’t take anything away from Stevens. How do you think each coach would address the accomplishments of the other? Think Stevens would say “Yeah K, you’ve won more than any coach in history, but what I’ve done in Boston the last 4 years is far more impressive”?
Quote:
Overall, there's a lot less job security in the NBA for coaches, and in many cases they share little of the blame for the results on the floor. It's a harder job, so I will have more respect for the NBA coach who can squeeze an additional 10-15 wins out of a team and get them playoff bound than I will for a coach who can recruit his way to an on-court advantage, either through his own charm or through the institutional weight of a blue blooded program.
Any coach is welcome to do build an empire like K (which he basically build from the ground up) - maybe we can revisit this topic in 25 years and see how many coaches have eclipsed K. Given that it’s “easier” surely the list will be long. And BTW - as discussed in this thread, the advantages of recruiting and depending on elite 17-18 yr olds can only go so far. Just as much success seems to come from schools with lesser recruits that have more experience. In fact, many Duke fans would rather see K recruiting players that are likely to stay 3-4 years. A few good upperclassmen are probably more valuable than a few insanely talented freshmen (example: the 2010 Duke team led by juniors and seniors).
Some where we're just not on the same page with this shot clock reduction. You said scoring wasn't what it should be. Then you brought up the shot clock being in fact reduced, the past 25 years or so. The game is not perfect. Every major team sport in this country is plagued with issues on and off the court/field. Innovation from coaches has nothing to do with anything. Coaches utilize what works vs doesn't work. They aren't going to fix what works. College football changing is an apples-oranges comparison to whether anything should change in a different sport. And many people loathe what has occurred in college football, with a lack of legitimate defense being played in a good proportion of the games. This all just sounds indicative of the person who shows up in the 4th inning of a 0-0 baseball game, and states "oh thank goodness, I didn't miss anything."
I’ll agree with that. What’s the purpose of innovating in sports? It’s typically an attempt at obtaining a competitive advantage. Are coaches like K, Williams, Boeheim, Self, Calapari, Izzo, Smart, Bennett, etc all anti-innovation? I bet most of these anti-innovation coaches could’ve coached in any league in the world multiple times in their lives.
I’ll agree with that. What’s the purpose of innovating in sports? It’s typically an attempt at obtaining a competitive advantage. Are coaches like K, Williams, Boeheim, Self, Calapari, Izzo, Smart, Bennett, etc all anti-innovation? I bet most of these anti-innovation coaches could’ve coached in any league in the world multiple times in their lives.
That's just a concession that the sport is stagnant. It's no so much an indictment of any individual coach as it is the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett
Some where we're just not on the same page with this shot clock reduction. You said scoring wasn't what it should be.
Clearly. I said that the shot clock was adjusted because scoring was low. I think that's pretty much indisputable. It seems you are disputing the reason for the shot clock change. Is that right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
And most NBA coaches don’t have resumes like Popovich or Phil Jackson who have combined to win 14 of the last 26 titles. People could easily say - well how hard is it to win titles when you coach Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Parker, Kawhi, Ginobili, etc. If being elite at either level is easy...go do it.
Here's the difference between what you and I are saying:
Eddie: "Bajan is saying it's easier to be an elite college coach than it is to be an elite NBA coach."
That's in fact NOT what I'm saying. I never said there was anything easy about reaching the pinnacle of coaching at either the college or pro level. I said that the "greatness" of college coaches needs to be put into perspective because they can literally go out and get whatever players they want. Can all coaches do this, no, but a "great" coach like Coach K with his Nike endorsements and ties to superstars on USA Basketball most certainly can. It's been a chronic complaint among other coaches that he enjoys a recruiting advantage by being seen next to Lebron and Kobe during international play. And that's a very legitimate complaint.
Someone like Erik Spoelstra can luck into a situation and have a team full of superstars. Once those superstars are gone, though, he becomes any other coach. Once Coach K's superstars moves on, he just signs 5 more McDonald's All Americans and he's back at it. This is why you'll see college coaches who can stay in a job for seemingly forever (Boeheim, Coach K, Dean Smith, Izzo, etc.). In the NBA, once your talent moves on, you retire and move on (Phil Jackson) or stay and struggle (Rudy T). I mean, imagine how much greater Rudy Tomjanovich could have been if he could have gotten Shaq and Kobe after Hakeem and Drexler moved on. He didn't have the luxury but Coach K does.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 04-11-2018 at 12:06 PM..
That's just a concession that the sport is stagnant. It's no so much an indictment of any individual coach as it is the system.
Clearly. I said that the shot clock was adjusted because scoring was low. I think that's pretty much indisputable. It seems you are disputing the reason for the shot clock change. Is that right?
Here's the difference between what you and I are saying:
Eddie: "Bajan is saying it's easier to be an elite college coach than it is to be an elite NBA coach."
That's in fact NOT what I'm saying. I never said there was anything easy about reaching the pinnacle of coaching at either the college or pro level. I said that the "greatness" of college coaches needs to be put into perspective because they can literally go out and get whatever players they want. Can all coaches do this, no, but a "great" coach like Coach K with his Nike endorsements and ties to superstars on USA Basketball most certainly can. It's been a chronic complaint among other coaches that he enjoys a recruiting advantage by being seen next to Lebron and Kobe during international play. And that's a very legitimate complaint.
Someone like Erik Spoelstra can luck into a situation and have a team full of superstars. Once those superstars are gone, though, he becomes any other coach. Once Coach K's superstars moves on, he just signs 5 more McDonald's All Americans and he's back at it. This is why you'll see college coaches who can stay in a job for seemingly forever (Boeheim, Coach K, Dean Smith, Izzo, etc.). In the NBA, once your talent moves on, you retire and move on (Phil Jackson) or stay and struggle (Rudy T). I mean, imagine how much greater Rudy Tomjanovich could have been if he could have gotten Shaq and Kobe after Hakeem and Drexler moved on. He didn't have the luxury but Coach K does.
So it’s been stagnant for what 50+ years? So? I don’t think college basketball is disappearing any time soon and those that enjoy it will keep enjoying it. What type of innovation would it take to win over people that don’t like college basketball? If any coach wants to innovate they are free to do so as long as the administration and fan base are happy (the team is winning).
How did K become an elite coach with Nike endorsements and the Olympic coaching job? He did it by consistently running a successful and clean program for decades. K went from a nobody in 1984 to a coach with 6 final fours and back-back-back titles by 1991. And guess what? He never had a player leave early during that time. A lot of schools came and went (Michigan/UNLV/UCONN) But the program led by K never faded from the college landscape. Of course K parlayed his success into endorsements, an Olympic gig and better recruiting - he would be a fool not to. The college game changed with one and dones, but so did K - that doesn’t mean he’s able to just roll the ball out and tell the kids to go win a championship. He’s proven that he could win in multiple eras.
Yes, a college coach can recruit and win the next year, but that doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed an infinite amount of success. Prior to 2010, people were starting to say he couldn’t recruit and land top notch talent. He was supposedly nearing retirement and unable to win in modern college basketball. And let’s face it, the bar is set very high for Duke. If K doesn’t make an elite 8 or final 4, the season was a bust. A pro coach can have several off years...they can even get fired multiple times and keep taking other jobs until they’ve redeemed and revived their career. Where does K go? If he isn’t the model of consistency and free of big scandals there’s really no where to go in college basketball. He’s king.
So it’s been stagnant for what 50+ years? So? I don’t think college basketball is disappearing any time soon and those that enjoy it will keep enjoying it. What type of innovation would it take to win over people that don’t like college basketball? If any coach wants to innovate they are free to do so as long as the administration and fan base are happy (the team is winning).
That's one way of looking at it. I suppose the NBA could have stuck with its old rules without its fanbase completely disappearing. Hardcore fans would continue to enjoy it and all of the naysayers would be free to go kick rocks. But then, isn't there something to be said about a League/company/organization that is always seeking ways to improve? Right now, we're seeing NBA and NCAA basketball ratings moving in two different directions. The NBA has embraced change and its reaping the benefits of that change. College basketball can remain as is, which would please its hardcore fans even if it doesn't necessarily produce the best long-term outcome for the sport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
Yes, a college coach can recruit and win the next year, but that doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed an infinite amount of success. Prior to 2010, people were starting to say he couldn’t recruit and land top notch talent. He was supposedly nearing retirement and unable to win in modern college basketball. And let’s face it, the bar is set very high for Duke. If K doesn’t make an elite 8 or final 4, the season was a bust. A pro coach can have several off years...they can even get fired multiple times and keep taking other jobs until they’ve redeemed and revived their career. Where does K go? If he isn’t the model of consistency and free of big scandals there’s really no where to go in college basketball. He’s king.
Unsuccessful college coaches bounce around the same way pro coaches do. They're not very different in that respect. The difference between college and the NBA is that the "great" coaches at the pro level can rarely build these multi-decade dynasties because it is next to impossible to get the players to maintain a high level of success for that long.
Another issue I have with college coaching--or at least its comparison to coaching at the pro level--is that salesmanship, which has nothing to do with sports, can play as important a role in your status among your peers as your actual understanding of the game. Dabo Swinney is a good example of this. By his own admission, he's not much of an "Xs and Os" type of guy, but he's excellent at promising mothers that their sons will go to church every Sunday, eat 3 squares a day, and graduate in 3-4 years. He basically recruited his way to "elite" status and he's regarded as one of the best coaches in the college game today.
That's one way of looking at it. I suppose the NBA could have stuck with its old rules without its fanbase completely disappearing. Hardcore fans would continue to enjoy it and all of the naysayers would be free to go kick rocks. But then, isn't there something to be said about a League/company/organization that is always seeking ways to improve? Right now, we're seeing NBA and NCAA basketball ratings moving in two different directions. The NBA has embraced change and its reaping the benefits of that change. College basketball can remain as is, which would please its hardcore fans even if it doesn't necessarily produce the best long-term outcome for the sport.
You act as if the only people watching college basketball is some tiny group of hardcore fans. I haven’t heard about any ratings crisis.
The NBA and NCAA are both basketball, but I’d be weary of thinking the NCAA can simply copy the NBA. For one, the NBA is a star (international at that) driven league whereas college basketball simply has no way develop that kind of star power. Where would the NBA be without Kobe, Lebron, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, etc? If the NBA was full of players with name recognition on par with MLB players ratings would likely tank.
Unsuccessful college coaches bounce around the same way pro coaches do. They're not very different in that respect. The difference between college and the NBA is that the "great" coaches at the pro level can rarely build these multi-decade dynasties because it is next to impossible to get the players to maintain a high level of success for that long.
If you’re a college coach that has bounced around, you’re likely a nobody. Look at Izzo, K, Williams, Self, etc - what do they all have in common? They recruit and coach well enough to build nationally recognized programs...which can be a long process (who was Duke in 1983?). That doesn’t mean anyone taking those jobs will succeed though - look at Matt Doherty or Tom Crean. You also have a lot of NBA coaches that just don’t want to go through the rebuilding process...Doc Rivers for example.
Anyway, not really sure what your point is anymore.
You act as if the only people watching college basketball is some tiny group of hardcore fans. I haven’t heard about any ratings crisis.
Do you ever stick to the arguments that are actually made? I said that the viewership for the NBA and NCAA are going in two different directions. That's not the same as saying that the NCAA is in full blown crisis mode.
And yes, regular season viewership for college hoops has been declining for some time now.
Quote:
College basketball viewership was down during the regular season across most networks. Part of the decline can be attributed to a constant shuffle of the men’s top 10, while record figures for presidential debates on cable TV also had an impact. However, the trend for regular-season college hoops viewership has been going down for years now for several nets. CBS led all nets this season, averaging 1.47 million viewers for its weekend telecasts. That figure is down from 1.64 million viewers last season and 1.8 million viewers for the ’13-14 season. ESPN also is down again after averaging record numbers in ’13-14. The net’s men’s college hoops games drew 1.23 million viewers, down from 1.38 million viewers in ’14-15. … ESPN2 saw a sharp drop for game coverage, with viewership down to 362,000 viewers from 426,000 last season. ESPNU also had its lowest figure in years, averaging 118,000 viewers.
It's even clear you didn't bother to read your own cite, or at least didn't Google very diligently because evidence of a ratings decline is not hard to find. The title in that article clearly says "Most Watched In 24 Years, Through the First Sunday." Last I checked, the NCAA tournament has three weekends of basketball, not one.
Quote:
The 2018 NCAA Tournament averaged a combined 5.8 rating per window across CBS, TBS, TNT and TruTV, tying 2016 as the lowest average for the event since 2009 (5.7). The tournament averaged 9.7 million viewers on TV — down 11% from last year (10.8M) but up 3% from 2016 (9.4M) — and 10.0 million with streaming included.
The NBA and NCAA are both basketball, but I’d be weary of thinking the NCAA can simply copy the NBA. For one, the NBA is a star (international at that) driven league whereas college basketball simply has no way develop that kind of star power. Where would the NBA be without Kobe, Lebron, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, etc? If the NBA was full of players with name recognition on par with MLB players ratings would likely tank.
The NBA has always been a star-driven League. It was a star-driven League during the Bird-Magic era, it was a star-driven League during the Jordan era, and it was a star-driven League during the Iverson-Kobe-Shaq era. The explanation for the NBA's rising viewership in recent years can't be simply "they got so many starzzz" because "starzz" is the dummy variable here. The NBA's ratings were in decline for 5 consecutive seasons starting in 2001. There was plenty of star power then (Shaq, Iverson, Kobe, T-Mac, young Lebron and Carmelo, Wade, KG, Duncan, etc.). So having stars is no guarantee that your trendline will be on the up and up.
College hoops needs to undergo some of the same rule changes the NBA did. Whereas the NBA loosened rules on illegal defense, allowing some variations of traditional zone defenses, the NCAA needs to move away from pure zones that allow bigs to post up in the lane indefinitely. They could also extend the 3 point line farther back to open up the passing game. They could also bring the shot clock in line with the NBA's as well as the amount of time allotted to bring the ball into the front court. There are all kinds of rule changes that can be made to enhance the quality of play. The NBA did it. There's no reason why the NCAA can't if so inclined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
Anyway, not really sure what your point is anymore.
College hoops needs to undergo some of the same rule changes the NBA did.
The basketball gods have heard our prayers.
Quote:
Why the changes, you ask? The NCAA hopes that all four will make the game better and more entertaining.
The experimental rules will help determine if a marginally more difficult three-point shot will be effective for men’s college basketball, and if widening the lane will reduce physicality and create more driving opportunities. In addition, the number of possessions and any impact on the pace and flow of the game will be evaluated.
Although moving the three-point line back seems like it will then turn into lower scoring amounts, it could actually increase scoring due to there being more room to attack the basket and potentially forcing teams to shoot more shots close to the basket rather than from beyond the arc. A wider free throw lane will also open up the paint as well, which could help offenses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
