(04-09-2015 04:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:14 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Huggins is saying the refs call too many fouls? He can't be serious. The way the tournament was officiated, there were guys who were called for 3 or 4 fouls in a game who arguably committed a dozen fouls. Coaches are teaching their players to hand check and body check constantly because they know the officials rarely call it -- sometimes, they only start calling those fouls in the last 5 minutes of a close game.

Did you even read the article? Or do you not understand what Huggins is saying?

He's not talking about the amount of fouls. He merely wants consistency, and making the game about the players. The best officials are those you don't notice. But officials today want to make certain that they are the center of attention, which is NOT how the game is supposed to be played.

He also says that if coaches and players have to face the entire media to answer for their bad play, or bad coaching, then officials should have to face the media and answer for bad calls, and incompetent refereeing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I did read it. He clearly wants fewer fouls called. He says "a good official is one you didn’t realize was there" and "we don’t want continued stoppages of play ... If there’s no advantage gained, why call a foul? If it doesn’t impede somebody, why call it?" Wanting the officials to be invisible, and wanting fewer stoppages of play, means that you want them to call fewer fouls.

Not all stoppages are for fouls. There are stops to review plays because the refs aren't sure what to call. They were either out of position, looking the wrong way, or simply don't know the rule they are trying to enforce. The officials are becoming more and more incompetent every year. We now know officials names, and they should be anonymous and invisible, except when needed. But even then they should just make the correct call, and quickly.

How many times do you see the refs gathered around the screen trying to review a play, and taking several minutes to do so? I can't count the number of times I've seen that, and half the time they still get the call wrong.

If the last 2 paragraphs weren't in the story, would agree with you 100%. But the last 2 paragraphs were in the story. He clearly is advocating for fewer fouls getting called- not to call the hand checks.

He was clearly advocating for consistency. That was evident at the beginning of the story. You simply chose to focus on the little bit at the end, rather than the story as a whole. Today's refs don't even call fouls the same way all the way through the game. What's a foul all game long suddenly ceases to be a foul in the last 2 minutes. Some games the refs let the players play, and others the refs make certain to impose their will by calling a foul every few seconds.

The NCAA changes the way fouls are to be called every year, leaving officials to guess how to interpret the changes in the rules every year, which is somewhat confusing to say the least. The officials are part time employees, which means they aren't fully invested in the job. Things like that are paving a road to incompetence, and they're making it a freeway with no exit ramps.

The problem with the refs quite frankly is the conferences have way too much say in how they officiate. A Big East game isn't officiated the same as an ACC game is.

And remember- Huggins used to coach in the Big East. That may be part of it when you think about it.

Has attendance been dropping or something? Why is it that this year there have been so many articles discussing how to "fix" college basketball?

Is it that games are getting longer? The simplest solution which would save a ton of bandwith is to remove 2 timeouts per team. 3 to's per team for the game, but no more than 2 timeouts in the 2nd half.

Otherwise, yeah, consistency in refereeing? Fix poor officiating? That's been a problem since the game was invented.

I dont know much about Huggins but he sounds like another arrogant coach who is missing the point.

If it really was about making the games mire exciting, the first suggestion would be to get rid of all the team timeouts. But of course coaches dont want that because that makes them less important.

The solutions are simple. Get rid of timeouts, change rules so that team that got fouled always gets the ball back after they shoot their free throws, etc. etc.

(04-09-2015 05:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I dont know much about Huggins but he sounds like another arrogant coach who is missing the point.

If it really was about making the games mire exciting, the first suggestion would be to get rid of all the team timeouts. But of course coaches dont want that because that makes them less important.

The solutions are simple. Get rid of timeouts, change rules so that team that got fouled always gets the ball back after they shoot their free throws, etc. etc.

Huggins graduated Magna C u m Laude, and is one of the most intelligent minds in college basketball today. You don't win nearly 800 games, when you aren't coaching at one of the basketball factories without a very sharp mind, and a bit of an attitude, especially when you're dealing with the NCAA's bureaucracy on a regular basis.

Of course, Huggins could care less what anyone thinks, and I like his attitude.

(04-09-2015 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Huggins is saying the refs call too many fouls? He can't be serious. The way the tournament was officiated, there were guys who were called for 3 or 4 fouls in a game who arguably committed a dozen fouls. Coaches are teaching their players to hand check and body check constantly because they know the officials rarely call it -- sometimes, they only start calling those fouls in the last 5 minutes of a close game.

Actually I think he is saying they call pointless fouls.. Some crews call everything, others call nothing and a football game breaks out.

College officiating should be centralized. Perhaps that would help consistency.

(04-09-2015 04:49 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Has attendance been dropping or something? Why is it that this year there have been so many articles discussing how to "fix" college basketball?

Is it that games are getting longer? The simplest solution which would save a ton of bandwith is to remove 2 timeouts per team. 3 to's per team for the game, but no more than 2 timeouts in the 2nd half.

Otherwise, yeah, consistency in refereeing? Fix poor officiating? That's been a problem since the game was invented.

I think part of it is the NBA made some changes and now their game is much improved. You have NBA people seeing that and it is trickling down. Cuban also came out today with some harsh criticism.

the time outs aren't the problem. The game on Monday night was over in about 2 hours and 10 minutes. That's not bad. The problem is that officials have allowed the games to get way too physical. I watched part of the Nova/Georgetown title game from 1985. Absolutely no hand checking at all. None. They made the change last year but folks bitched about it enough to get the officials to back off, instead of waiting it out a while and eventually having the teams change to where they wanted it to go...

The only change I would do with a timeout is if a team calls a timeout within 30 seconds of a 16/12/8/4 timeout, it becomes that timeout.

Also- the conferences absolutely need to be out of the officials business. A Big East game should be called exactly like a Big Ten game. The officials should be nationwide. Period.

(04-09-2015 03:25 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 11:45 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  I was anticipating a bottle of bourbon.

I was hoping for a bottle of bourban.

BYOB, guys.

The NCAA should get off its pile of cash and train, certify and provide officials for all sports. Can you imaging if the AFC west had different guidelines for their refs than the NFC east?

Why do we need scheduled TV timeouts?

What's with all the chairs? Players and coaches should be standing up and ready to go just like football!

(04-09-2015 09:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the time outs aren't the problem. The game on Monday night was over in about 2 hours and 10 minutes. That's not bad. The problem is that officials have allowed the games to get way too physical. I watched part of the Nova/Georgetown title game from 1985. Absolutely no hand checking at all. None. They made the change last year but folks bitched about it enough to get the officials to back off, instead of waiting it out a while and eventually having the teams change to where they wanted it to go...

The only change I would do with a timeout is if a team calls a timeout within 30 seconds of a 16/12/8/4 timeout, it becomes that timeout.

Also- the conferences absolutely need to be out of the officials business. A Big East game should be called exactly like a Big Ten game. The officials should be nationwide. Period.

And 84 was when it got physical. Georgetown absolutely mugged Dayton that year. Then they won the semi-finals by banging on the Kentucky ballhandlers after falling behind at the half. It was a different game before the Big East officiating style took over.

(04-09-2015 03:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Huggins is saying the refs call too many fouls? He can't be serious. The way the tournament was officiated, there were guys who were called for 3 or 4 fouls in a game who arguably committed a dozen fouls. Coaches are teaching their players to hand check and body check constantly because they know the officials rarely call it -- sometimes, they only start calling those fouls in the last 5 minutes of a close game.

Did you even read the article? Or do you not understand what Huggins is saying?

He's not talking about the amount of fouls. He merely wants consistency, and making the game about the players. The best officials are those you don't notice. But officials today want to make certain that they are the center of attention, which is NOT how the game is supposed to be played.

He also says that if coaches and players have to face the entire media to answer for their bad play, or bad coaching, then officials should have to face the media and answer for bad calls, and incompetent refereeing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

He replied to something I posted from the article that he said:
“It wasn’t long ago they didn’t stop play if I put my hand on you at halfcourt and it didn’t have anything to do with the play,” Huggins said. “If you were going laterally or just bouncing the ball and I didn’t impede your progress to the basket, they never called a foul.

“If we don’t want continued stoppages of play, which is what they say, why would it be that way now? If there’s no advantage gained, why call a foul? If it doesn’t impede somebody, why call it? Maybe we ought to look at that first.”

So he is advocating let folks hand check. Which is the problem. Go back and watch some of those old videos. There was no hand checking.

The game was better and it was a lot different prior to the mid-80s.

Hear! Hear! It was absolutely better. A great offense in motion was a beautiful thing to watch. Passing was crisper, ball handling precise, and layups made with two steps at the most. Now kids frequently take 3 and 4 steps to the basket. They catch a pass and take steps before ever putting the ball down. The bellying up by Wisconsin was over the top. Hand checks were all over the place as well. Under the basket was a free for all with some of the worst muggings I've seen in sometime. But for all of that the thing that ticks me off the most are the travels and palming of the ball that has become routine and never called. The game lost interest to me Bullet at about exactly the time interval you gave. I'm happy I got to see Mengelt and Maravich play and a little bit later Ernie and Bernie. But I don't buy into kids that don't buy into my alma mater and I don't like to compare the so called stars of today to the stars of the past. They are mutually exclusive groups for the most part.

(04-09-2015 02:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:50 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  He's absolutely right about shortening the shot clock not being the right idea. If the primary complaint is that offense sucks, the solution is not to get a few more poor possessions in a game just to make the final score 71-67 instead of 67-63.

2 things- 1 the problem is teams are holding the ball out 20 seconds each time down the court before they start playing. So that takes 5 seconds of nothing out of play. Win...

another thing I saw that is in FIBA now which makes sense. Shot clock resets now internationally to 14 seconds instead of 24 seconds on missed shots. Which totally makes sense as the team doesn't have to bring the ball down the court. That adds a lot of possessions to games.

I must be watching different games than you (and admittedly I don't have the time to watch very many) but I don't recall seeing very many teams try to take quite that much air out of the ball, unless it's going for the last shot of a half or something. Even if some do, with the clock at a relatively short 35 seconds, I don't mind that there are some teams that try to use tempo as a competitive advantage. (Without a clock, or even at 45 seconds, I agree it's too much of a slowdown.) It brings some stylistic diversity to the game.

I do however enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with you about the reset to 14 seconds on an offensive rebound. I hadn't heard about that rule, and I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense.

I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

(04-10-2015 10:04 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:04 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

I prefer 50-48 to 100-98. So, sue me.

Neither of us have any input, so it is all conjecture and opinions.

(04-10-2015 03:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:04 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

I prefer 50-48 to 100-98. So, sue me.

Neither of us have any input, so it is all conjecture and opinions.

No thanks. They'll put some moron on the bench who'll make a decision so distasteful that neither side would like.

(04-11-2015 07:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:04 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

I prefer 50-48 to 100-98. So, sue me.

Neither of us have any input, so it is all conjecture and opinions.

No thanks. They'll put some moron on the bench who'll make a decision so distasteful that neither side would like.

Haha.

Very true, my fellow poster. I will buy you a sweet tea someday instead.

(04-12-2015 04:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 07:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:04 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I like the 35 second shot clock. Heck, I would prefer no shot clock, so underdogs could put on a "freeze" game. The other team isn't obligated to possession of the ball.

Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

I prefer 50-48 to 100-98. So, sue me.

Neither of us have any input, so it is all conjecture and opinions.

No thanks. They'll put some moron on the bench who'll make a decision so distasteful that neither side would like.

Haha.

Very true, my fellow poster. I will buy you a sweet tea someday instead.

Make it a mint julep and you've got a deal.

(04-12-2015 04:14 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 04:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 07:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Thank goodness you have no input on the decision. I would stop watching basketball, if they went back to the snooze-fest of those boring games with very few possessions per game.

I prefer 50-48 to 100-98. So, sue me.

Neither of us have any input, so it is all conjecture and opinions.

No thanks. They'll put some moron on the bench who'll make a decision so distasteful that neither side would like.

Haha.

Very true, my fellow poster. I will buy you a sweet tea someday instead.

Make it a mint julep and you've got a deal.

What the heck, I am over the legal age. It is a deal.

I'll buy the mint julep and you can buy the SoCo.