College Basketball Random Chatter 2013-2014 Season

• Mulva

  

  reclegend22;1528713 wrote:Bottom line, Rick Pitino has some major adjustments to make. The NCAA was watching last spring. Thank God.
  
  While I do agree with Mulva, in that I don't want the referees to have too much control that they are in effect deciding the games with their whistles, what teams like Louisville were doing had to stop. This isn't Mortal Kombat. It's basketball. Hand-to-hand combat was completely changing the game, and, as evidenced by the downward trend in scoring nationwide that I referenced above, it was not for the better.

  Then they should have called fouls on plays that were fouls, not regulated it so that non-fouls will now end up getting whistled.
• reclegend22

  

  Mulva;1528719 wrote:Then they should have called fouls on plays that were fouls, not regulated it so that non-fouls will now end up getting whistled.

  While the foul calling may seem a bit radical the first several weeks to start the season, it is my belief that with this rule change we will see things even out over time and eventually arrive at a place where what you describe becomes the norm. At least that's my hope.
  
  Obsessive hand-checking and the full-contact arm-bar need go, though.
• Azubuike24

  

  It's tough. There is some justification to let the game evolve. Whether intentional or not, basketball has changed greatly in the last 15-20 years. It's much more physical. Not just inside, but everywhere. This makes it more difficult to officiate and regardless of how a team plays, there's also a certain expectation of what a game as a whole should look like. This snapshot doesn't include 80 fouls and 100+ foul shots. However, there are some teams (and games) over recent years where you literally could've hit those numbers if the game was called by the book.
  
  There needs to be a balance. Both the officials cracking down and calling it how it should be, but the coaches adjusting to it. These rules aren't necessarily NEW, but they are being emphasized and called now. What impact will it have on the game? It remains to be seen. It throws a new element into what should be a great season. The teams and coaches that adjust, may just find themselves with a nice advantage.
• reclegend22

  

  Azubuike24;1528739 wrote:It's tough. There is some justification to let the game evolve. Whether intentional or not, basketball has changed greatly in the last 15-20 years. It's much more physical. Not just inside, but everywhere. This makes it more difficult to officiate and regardless of how a team plays, there's also a certain expectation of what a game as a whole should look like. This snapshot doesn't include 80 fouls and 100+ foul shots. However, there are some teams (and games) over recent years where you literally could've hit those numbers if the game was called by the book.
  
  There needs to be a balance. Both the officials cracking down and calling it how it should be, but the coaches adjusting to it. These rules aren't necessarily NEW, but they are being emphasized and called now. What impact will it have on the game? It remains to be seen. It throws a new element into what should be a great season. The teams and coaches that adjust, may just find themselves with a nice advantage.

  I think that is just it. The rules weren't being properly enforced by officials, so these "new" changes to the rules are the NCAA's message to referees that they better be now. Something had to be done, so a clear communication was sent. Like Az, I hope that this new emphasis on the rules of the game will eventually balance itself out and get basketball back to how it was intended to be played.
  
  Anything that will help open the game up and lead to a more skill-oriented game is fine by me. I think it's a win for the game. Maybe not at first, as officials will need some time to adjust to things, but over time.
• Laley23

  

  Best news of the day???
  
  Gus Johnson is joining Bill Raftery on FS1 as the #1 team for their CBK coverage all year long!!!
  
  Immediately this makes FS1 a destination for hoops fans to tune in for a casual game. FS1 doesnt have the rights to the best match-ups yet, but this team is a huge step in getting there. I will for sure be watching a lot of FS1 games now (as well as for the OC Fantasy Game).
  
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20131103/bill-raftery-fox-sports-1-nfl-bullying-media-circus/index.html
• Iliketurtles

  

  Laley23;1529499 wrote:Best news of the day???
  
  Gus Johnson is joining Bill Raftery on FS1 as the #1 team for their CBK coverage all year long!!!
  
  Immediately this makes FS1 a destination for hoops fans to tune in for a casual game. FS1 doesnt have the rights to the best match-ups yet, but this team is a huge step in getting there. I will for sure be watching a lot of FS1 games now (as well as for the OC Fantasy Game).
  
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20131103/bill-raftery-fox-sports-1-nfl-bullying-media-circus/index.html

  Fuck yes! That is awesome. FS1 is where I will be tuning in!
• Laley23

  

  Iliketurtles;1529503 wrote:Fuck yes! That is awesome. FS1 is where I will be tuning in!

  Yeah. I know they wanted to launch for football season, but it really was a pretty bad time for them. They dont have rights to ANYTHING people want to watch during football season outside of a few D/E games after the big networks have picked over the others.
  
  College bball however is notorious for getting ratings for any kind of game. I presume it has a lot to do with the fact that people who watch cbk like the sport no matter if their team is in it. FS1 wont need a GREAT matchup to get ratings like they do for football, and this pairing will likely bump them even more. I cant wait for the season to kick off.
• Mulva

  

  Well suddenly I'm very excited for Providence/BC.
• Azubuike24

  

  This is one of the craziest plays I've ever seen in a live game.
  
  http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/kentucky-james-young-scores-own-basket-most-unlikely-021237508--ncaab.html
• Azubuike24

  

  Even more interesting, it only counts as 2-points for the opponent regardless of where it's made from.
• Laley23

  

  Azubuike24;1529604 wrote:Even more interesting, it only counts as 2-points for the opponent regardless of where it's made from.

  And what you might NOT know is if that had gone in on his own basket, it also would only have been 2 points.
• ohiobucks1

  

  Laley23;1529607 wrote:And what you might NOT know is if that had gone in on his own basket, it also would only have been 2 points.

  
  did you literally just repeat him?
• GOONx19

  

  ^ Nice signature, ya phony.
• Laley23

  

  ohiobucks1;1529666 wrote:did you literally just repeat him?

  No. He scored for the opponent, and it was 2 pts. I am saying if he had scored for his own team, it also wouldve only been only 2 pts even though it was thrown behind the 3pt line.
• wildcats20

  

  Laley23;1529754 wrote:No. He scored for the opponent, and it was 2 pts. I am saying if he had scored for his own team, it also wouldve only been only 2 pts even though it was thrown behind the 3pt line.

  Care to explain that? It would have been a full court shot.
• Azubuike24

  

  wildcats20;1529763 wrote:Care to explain that? It would have been a full court shot.

  
  Yeah, I'm curious? How would it not be a 3?
• Laley23

  

  You are only awarded a 3 points on a shot attempt from behind the arc. That was clearly not a shot attempt, but an attempt to save the ball. The proper ruling would have been 2 pts for Kentucky (obviously, I am switching ends of the court here) because the only point amount that can be awarded for a non-shot attempt is 2.
  
  Similarly, if you take a full court shot, buzzer sounds, then it bounces and goes in, it does not count. The shot attempt is over as soon as it hits the floor and at that point the period is over. If you shoot it from full court, it bounces, then buzzer sounds, then goes in...you get 2 pts for the ball going in, but not 3 because the shot attempt stopped as soon as it hit the ground.
  
  Its a pretty easy rule to know, but a tough rule to enforce. That is why on alley-oop attempts that go in, we often see 3 pts awarded because who is to know the actual intent of the shooter/passer?? I think you COULD make that argument with James Young as well on this play...that he was saving it, but also shooting it because he didnt have a teammate to save it to. So they could award 3 pts, but no one would have a real argument if they enforced the actual rule.
  
  On the full length bouncing of a ball, it should always be enforced correctly because there is no grey line to a play like that on what attempt is...because no one shot the ball after the bounce.
  
  
  SOURCE: I was an official for 4 years and know the rulebook pretty well (though some stuff is admittedly leaving my brain over time).
  
  I actually enforced the accidental 3 that was a pass once. Coach was FURIOUS...but I stuck to it, showed him the rulebook after the game, and he offered to buy me a beer for the profanity spewed in my direction. Said he was glad he had an official that knew the rulebook that well.
• Laley23

  

  Also, it is the reason why Ricky Davis did NOT get the Triple Double in the game he shot at his own goal. You can not attempt a shot attempt on your own basket. You can score on yourself, but you wont be credited with a FG make or attempt or miss or anything. And because of this, you cannot be credited with a rebound because a rebound can only take place after a legal FG attempt.
• Azubuike24

  

  So, you're saying there is a subjective par of that ruling that comes into play where the intent of the player has to be determined? I mean, obviously here he isn't trying to shoot. On a failed alley-oop or pass, it's tougher to tell because the direction of the ball is usually still toward the goal.
  
  Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
• Laley23

  

  Azubuike24;1529890 wrote:So, you're saying there is a subjective par of that ruling that comes into play where the intent of the player has to be determined? I mean, obviously here he isn't trying to shoot. On a failed alley-oop or pass, it's tougher to tell because the direction of the ball is usually still toward the goal.
  
  Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

  Pretty much, yes.
  
  It sucks, because no ref is going to make that call, but its the correct call to make (to only award a 2 not a 3) on plays like that.
• Laley23

  

  Someone posted this Bob Knight article (as in, he wrote it I believe)on recruiting back when he was at Indiana. Like, in the late 90s. I think it still holds true today.
  
  Some good stuff.
  http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3244349
• Mulva

  

  Syracuse down 36-24 to Cornell late in the first.
• Azubuike24

  

  Kentucky has drawn 20 fouls in the first half. The problem is, they have also missed 15 free throws.
• Mulva

  

  Law of Gus still applies. Good to know.
• Azubuike24

  

  J. Randle in the big time doghouse tonight. He's gotten ripped a few times just as bad as DeMarcus Cousins and Terrence Jones did.