- This topic has 19 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“On Wednesday night, Florida State guard Xavier Rathan-Mayes scored 30 points in less than five minutes in a Division I basketball game. Go ahead, check the play-by-play sheet. It’s all there, bucket after bucket, Rathan-Mayes staging a one-man takeover of literally every possession, including the only one he didn’t finish himself — a Robbie Berwick 3 with 23 seconds to play for which Rathan-Mayes was credited with an assist. Incredible, right? Even more incredible: Florida State still lost. The Seminoles were trailing by 17 when their freshman morphed into Kobe-against-the-Raptors. But they allowed 52 points in the second half to Miami and fell 81-77 all the same. Crazy.”
“Grantland’s Mark Titus picks up a radical rules change we’ve pushed for in the past — getting rid of charges altogether: “Here’s one suggestion that could add a little spice to the discussion: Let’s ban charges from the help side. Instead of experimenting with a larger restricted area under the basket, just get rid of the arc altogether. I know it sounds insane, but you know what’s more insane? Rewarding players for grabbing their nuts and falling over. Seriously. Imagine basketball hadn’t yet been invented, and a group of people got together to make up rules for the new sport. Imagine how the room would respond if someone said, ‘We should make a rule that lets defenders force turnovers by just standing close to the basket and pretending to be knocked down.’ Half the people would be in tears from laughing, while the other half would be trying to figure out who let Greg Paulus into the meeting. I know what you’re thinking: If charges didn’t exist, what would keep offensive players under control? Wouldn’t they just be able to put their heads down and power the ball to the basket? No, because there would still be offensive fouls. Off-ball defenders could still slide over, put their hands up, and keep a vertical plane as they jumped to challenge shots. If the offensive player bulldozes the defender in that instance, an offensive foul would still be called. The difference is that defenders would have to make a play on the ball. Defenders would have to, you know, play defense instead of just saying, ‘Welp — there’s nothing I can do to stop him, so I might as well just stand here, close my eyes, and hope I don’t die.’“
Doing away with help defense charges is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of. This means that once you beat your man everybody has to get out of the way and let you have a clear path to the basket. So much for team defense and teaching man-ball-basket principles. Beating a member of the opposite team to a spot means something in basketball, unless you take away the charge. I hate floppers, but I love well played team defense with good rotations and discipline.
This is a classic case of a blogger trying to generate hits from the mindless masses.
Doing away with help defense charges is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of. This means that once you beat your man everybody has to get out of the way and let you have a clear path to the basket. So much for team defense and teaching man-ball-basket principles. Beating a member of the opposite team to a spot means something in basketball, unless you take away the charge. I hate floppers, but I love well played team defense with good rotations and discipline.
This is a classic case of a blogger trying to generate hits from the mindless masses.
Pretty much what I was thinking. How is beating a man to a spot and stopping his progress toward the basket not playing defense?
I would like to see more emphasis on verticality. I haaaaaate to see a defender go straight up and have the offensive player jump into his belly and that be called a foul on the defender.
Also, if a defender is established in front of an offensive player and backpedaling and the offensive player runs into him, that should be an offensive foul.
Basically I think offensive players should truly have to ‘draw’ contact, and not initiate it.
Switching gears for a moment, I happened to have it on EspnU earlier during a recruiting show. They started their show with a collection of clips of college bball head coaches pretty much dragging through the mud any would-be proposed rule to reinstate freshman ineligibility. I haven’t looked for a link yet, but it was interesting to see their reactions.
Calipari was the most vehement in his objections, saying those in ivory towers couldn’t possibly know what was best for people down in the thick of things. Calipari would of course possibly suffer quite a bit with losing one-and-dones and freshman availability. That said, I mostly agree with Calipari on this one.
This has less to do with ‘betterment of the players / academic integrity’ and more to do with Jim Delany getting the other league commissioners on board with finding a way around the NBA’s ‘one year out’ rule. Shocking that a Cheat alum would say something about acting in the name of the ‘greater good’ while actually trying to find a way to protect his own interests. I digress.
^No coach came out and expressed that sentiment, but it’s the elephant in the room. It was funny to hear Thad Matta’s comments. He said that since the possible proposal was linked to the B1G conference other coaches around the country had already begun using it as ammo against the B1G for potential recruits. ‘The B1G wants you to be unable to play as a freshman.’ Ha. Gotta thank your buddy ol’ Delany on that one, Thad. It’s my understanding that such a rule can be enacted on a conference level. Might have goofed a bit, B1G, on giving your competitors ammo in the recruiting wars.
Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim would take suspension over players’ tourney ban
^Noble of you Jim, but it’s about punishing you and the University. You guys held yourselves out this season in hopes that the NCAA wouldn’t do anything else. Your decision.
If you’d have said “Once punishment is handed down our players will be allowed to leave with no penalties so that they can pursue postseason play” then I would’ve agreed with you. But you didn’t. The University threw this season’s team under the bus to save itself from future punishment and whatever recruiting issues that would’ve brought about. End of story.
Speaking of rule changes, I’m curious what you guys think about revising the way teams/individuals are penalized for fouls. I’ve always hated how players can be disqualified for fouls. I propose doing away with fouling out of a game. In contrast, when a player reaches 4 or 5 or 6 (whatever number) the fouled team gets an extra free throw; three instead of two if in the double bonus or if not they get 1 FT plus the one and one. Or give the fouled player one FT and let the team retain their possession.
Another alternative might be to give all players an extra foul with each OT, i.e. a player who fouled out in regulation would be permitted to play the OT until he committed his sixth foul.Speaking of rule changes, I’m curious what you guys think about revising the way teams/individuals are penalized for fouls. I’ve always hated how players can be disqualified for fouls. I propose doing away with fouling out of a game. In contrast, when a player reaches 4 or 5 or 6 (whatever number) the fouled team gets an extra free throw; three instead of two if in the double bonus or if not they get 1 FT plus the one and one. Or give the fouled player one FT and let the team retain their possession.
Another alternative might be to give all players an extra foul with each OT, i.e. a player who fouled out in regulation would be permitted to play the OT until he committed his sixth foul.Interesting concept, I still like disqualifications though in order to emphasize ‘proper’ defensive technique. Of course, you’re at the whims of personal interpretation to that end though.
Espn Bubble Watch updated today
Discusses a rather popular topic around these parts – the merit of the rpi:
“The RPI is outdated, imprecise, too quietly impactful on the selection process, you name it. We tolerate it as a function of the Bubble Watch’s purpose; we rarely see its value. But in extreme situations, its inherent logic can hold true. At some point, you’ve got to beat somebody. BYU hasn’t.”
Also, here is NC State’s synopsis:
NC State [17-11 (8-7), RPI: 36, SOS: 3] Now that’s how you get off the bubble. A few weeks ago, a close loss against Virginia on Feb. 11 was the Wolfpack’s fifth in six games, with little, beyond that Jan. 11 win over Duke, to recommend them. Now? They’re safely in the field. That’s what happens when you beat Louisville and North Carolina on the road in late February. Suddenly, NC State’s No. 2-ranked schedule, top-40 RPI, and top-25 noncon schedule are backed up by three real-deal wins. The Wolfpack have moved up into the No. 8/9 seed range for now. It would take a downturn inversely proportional to the past two weeks for the Wolfpack to have to worry much the rest of the way. Merely avoiding a bad loss at Boston College Saturday may do the trick.
Back in the days of the Great Herb Debate, I sliced and diced the RPI in a number of different entries…most notably the bubble criteria that I use every week. Over time, I’ve become convinced that for the true bubble teams, the RPI ranking of the teams that they’ve beaten are more important than their own RPI….and I’m OK with that.
I absolutely do not like the “no foul out” rule. Learning to play with fouls and foul trouble is part of the game.
One extra FT? If I have a player like TJ or some other consensus AA, of course I want him on the game, and the value of him being there far offsets one additional FT (unless there are 5 seconds left and that extra FT puts the game out of reach). A player with 3 or 4 fouls may not play as aggressively on D, this letting the opponent get an easy bucket. Conversely, if I have 4 fouls and I hack someone, knowing I can stay in the game – no big deal, a hard foul and stop the bucket giving them a chance at the line. Many FT shooters these days percentage wise will miss one of 3 anyway so no big loss AND I stay in the game.
Regarding the 8/9 seed – this the worst place to be. Would much rather be a 10/11 or somehow find a way to stretch to 6/7.
8/9 means round 1 playing the other 8/9 in an evenly matched game, with a 1 waiting in the balance. Granted, it looks like Dook and UVA are sitting nicrely for 1’s and we have beaten Dook and gave UVA all they wanted, I still would rather not face them in round 2.
10 means playing a 7, and chances are not a lot of difference in the teams. Win the 10/7 game and you have a 2. Even better is the 11/6 – still fairly evenly matched round 1 and a 3 waiting if you win. 8/9 is usually a death trap seed.
Would much rather be a 10/11 or somehow find a way to stretch to 6/7.
10 seed has a better winning percentage in the NCAAT than the 9 seed (and 6-seed does better than the 5’s)
Over time, I’ve become convinced that for the true bubble teams, the RPI ranking of the teams that they’ve beaten are more important than their own RPI….and I’m OK with that.
I think you are right. This goes back to the Jay Bilas mantra, “Who did you play and who did you beat?”
A bubblicious RPI can be built with mediocre results against a good schedule or vice versa. Deciding who is really worthy or who has potential in the tournament is most easily quantified by “quality wins.”
Interesting nugget:
N.C. State…is 1-14 in the next ACC game after a win against Duke or North Carolina since the start of the 1994-95 season.
Espn Bubble Watch updated today
Also, here is NC State’s synopsis:
NC State [17-11 (8-7), RPI: 36, SOS: 3] Now that’s how you get off the bubble. A few weeks ago, a close loss against Virginia on Feb. 11 was the Wolfpack’s fifth in six games, with little, beyond that Jan. 11 win over Duke, to recommend them. Now? They’re safely in the field. That’s what happens when you beat Louisville and North Carolina on the road in late February. Suddenly, NC State’s No. 2-ranked schedule, top-40 RPI, and top-25 noncon schedule are backed up by three real-deal wins. The Wolfpack have moved up into the No. 8/9 seed range for now. It would take a downturn inversely proportional to the past two weeks for the Wolfpack to have to worry much the rest of the way. Merely avoiding a bad loss at Boston College Saturday may do the trick.
Interesting nugget:
N.C. State…is 1-14 in the next ACC game after a win against Duke or North Carolina since the start of the 1994-95 season.
This is why the collective sphincter of WPN will make a boa constrictor look weak tomorrow.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Mike wrote:</div>
Would much rather be a 10/11 or somehow find a way to stretch to 6/7.10 seed has a better winning percentage in the NCAAT than the 9 seed (and 6-seed does better than the 5’s)
I did not look up the stats so thanks for making my point. When I fill out my bracket I always have several 10-13’s winning round 1 in upsets. I hope we dont end in 8/9.
The problem with the “ejector seat” this year is that we almost certainly wouldn’t be seeded opposite Duke or Wahoowa. That leaves the Shadow Pack ™ and the Mystery Team.
Come on, you freaking KNOW who we’d get.
Game theory is simple enough. The interests of the NCAA are served best by screwing Calipari as much as possible. Because he doesn’t pretend to be “holier than thou” and preserve their facade. So they will get the hardest road possible. We would be the most dangerous 8/9, like Kentucky was last season (as given to poor Scary Wheat). Not that we would be a huge threat, but a 5% chance of an upset is way more significant than 0.5% than, say, Butler would have.
The secondary criterion is that “close escapes” for the Shadow Pack ™ would make for good tv.
Looming in the background, I believe the committee will do everything possible to set up a bed of roses for “Coach 1K” (barf) to win it, and they have no chance against Calipari’s crew.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
