There Is No College Basketball Scoring Crisis Comment Count

Brian

"College basketball is facing a crisis. It’s time for an extreme makeover."

-Seth Davis, 3/2/2015

16428677148_8208183d25_z

[Bryan Fuller]

After a one-year surge in offense spurred by a sometimes-enforced focus on contact and the virtual elimination of off-ball charges, college basketball largely reverted to its old rules this year. The result: a fractional dip in scoring to new lows and sustained outcry from announcers and newspapermen alike.

Damn things like "division," full speed ahead:

Is college basketball in crisis?

Scoring is down. Pace is at an all-time low. Some teams are winning with defense, which is fine, but far too many others are surviving simply because — let's face it — they miss fewer shots.

Damn things like "bothering to look at even one stat," full speed ahead:

[Colorado head coach Tad] Boyle said several factors, including the way the game is officiated, has led to lower scoring. Teams also tend to do the same things offensively, which makes defending them easier. But for the most part Boyle boiled it down. "Better shooting, quite frankly, would really help," he said.

Seth Davis had a major SI piece decrying the decline:

The more things change, the more they ... get worse. College basketball is slower, more grinding, more physical and more, well, offensive than it has been in a long, long time. The 2014-15 season is shaping up to be the worst offensive season in modern history. Through Feb. 22, teams were averaging 67.1 points per game. That is the lowest average since 1952. The previous low for that span was set just two years ago. This more than reverses the gains that were made last season, after the rules committee made adjustments to clamp down on physical defense and make it harder to draw a charge. Thanks to lax enforcement by officials and a foolish decision to reverse the block/charge modification, scoring declined by 3.79 points per game. That is the steepest single-season drop on record.

As of late, the fretting has spread to the athletic director level, as those ADs look at their attendance figures. All of this looks at the state of the game today and shakes its head sadly at what we've lost.

And it's all nonsense.

College basketball has barely changed

The thing about college basketball is how little it's changed over the past 13 years. Kenpom has data back to 2002 showing an eerily static state of play, with a slight trend towards more efficiency.

Things that actually seem to have a trend are bolded:

Stat 2015 2010 2005 2002
Offensive efficiency 102.1 100.8 101 100.9
Possessions per game 64.8 67.3 67.3 69.5
eFG% 49 48.8 49.3 49.1
TO% 19.1 20.4 21.3 21.5
OREB% 31.1 32.7 33.8 34.1
FTA/FGA 37.1 37.7 36.5 37.6
3PT% 34.3 34.2 34.6 34.5
2PT% 47.8 47.7 48 47.8
FT% 69.2 68.9 68.7 69
Block% 9.6 9.2 8.8 8.5
Steal 9.4 9.8 10.4 10.3
3P/FGA 34.2 32.6 33 32.1
A/FGM 53.1 53.5 55.7 55.2

Shooting has remained shockingly static, as have all the individual components—despite the three point arc moving back slightly during this sample. Offensive efficiency has in fact increased even without the rules changes that a panicked committee instituted two years ago, implemented after a season (2013) in which offensive efficiency was a half-point worse per hundred possessions than it was in 2002.

Only a few things have actually changed: there are fewer turnovers and steals as teams take care of the ball better; there are fewer offensive rebounds as more teams adopt the Wisconsin/Michigan model of preventing transition opportunities at all costs. And there are fewer possessions.

That's it. Games are in fact getting shorter in terms of time spent doing the basketball. Free throw rates remain essentially constant as the denominator shrinks. There are fewer balls flung out of bounds, stopping the clock. Little that happens during the 40 minutes the clock is actually running has changed in 13 years. There are 7% fewer possessions. That is about it.

This holds at all levels. Major conference stats from leagues that had approximately the same membership over the course of these 13 years (ie, not the Big East) show the same broad trends, albeit with the additional jitter inherent in a much smaller sample size. The ACC has plummeted from the country's second-fastest league to #23:

ACC 2015 2010 2005 2002
Offensive efficiency 104.2 100.4 104.9 106.3
Possessions per game 63.3 67.8 70.5 74.2
eFG% 49.1 47 50 51.9
TO% 16.9 20 20.2 20.2
OREB% 31.4 35 35.2 33.7
FTA/FGA 33.8 36.5 38.9 37.7

The Big Ten is less dramatic but similar:

Big Ten 2015 2010 2005 2002
Offensive efficiency 104 102.8 103.2 102.4
Possessions per game 62.3 62.3 62.8 65.1
eFG% 49.3 49.5 50.6 50.9
TO% 17.3 18.9 20.6 21.3
OREB% 30.2 30.8 32.3 32
FTA/FGA 33.4 33 34.4 37

The Big Ten has shown some degradation of shooting as fewer fouls are called and effective field goal percentage slips, but the large decrease in turnovers has offset that.

The Big Twelve has undergone a dip in efficiency…

Big Twelve 2015 2010 2005 2002
Offensive efficiency 102.2 103.9 104.7 105.6
Possessions per game 64.7 69.1 65.4 70.2
eFG% 48 49.4 50.5 50.2
TO% 19 19.2 20.4 19.2
OREB% 33.7 32.6 33.9 34.9
FTA/FGA 39 39.5 36.8 33.5

…but again, we are talking about a league losing approximately one basket per game. Hardly a crisis. The Big Twelve still shows the overall slowdown and hints at the reduction in TOs and OREBs as well.

College basketball is fine when college basketball is being played

ysaxehqeckld8uch2du2[1]

There is no college basketball scoring crisis. There is a college basketball actually-playing-basketball crisis.

It is not particularly surprising that athletic directors will leap at any explanation they can get their hands on to explain ever-slower games and declining attendance, even if that entails flogging a measly 7% decline in the number of shots as the end of basketball. It's not surprising because the alternative is finding the true culprits: the athletic directors themselves.

The athletic directors are the ones signing the contracts that see every timeout, and there are a million timeouts, followed by a commercial. They're the ones who implemented the ridiculous review system that stops play for minutes at a time to not give someone a flagrant foul or arbitrarily decide to overturn or not overturn an out of bounds call that was already pretty arbitrary.

They are the ones responsible for this:

Overall, the last 60 seconds of the 52 [most recent 2014 NCAA tourney] games combined have taken five hours, 44 minutes, and 51 seconds to complete. (That's including the five bonus final minutes from overtime games.) 5:44:51 is 605 percent longer than realtime; the average final minute took 5:57 to finish, with a median of 5:29.

That is insane.

Maybe people were inclined to put up with that when the alternatives were watching Hee-Haw or silently playing chess in a room with one very loud ticking clock. Not so much these days.

The problem is with the product. Fix the product. You might make less money right now, but with a better product you will be better off in the long run. Here's how you fix the product:

  • Coaches must sacrifice a digit to call a timeout. The timeout signal is now a head coach handing one of his freshly snipped fingers or toes to the referee. Until such time as the coach has too few fingers to manipulate the shears, he must snip the fingers off himself. Afterwards his wife or children must.

…what? "Too extreme," you say? "This is barbaric," you say? "I will not condone this sort of behavior in our society,"  you say?

Fine. Fine.

  • Severely reduce the number of timeouts. Ideally this is one, like hockey. More realistically you need to cut them down to three. Timeouts benefit nobody except megalomaniac coaches. They drastically lessen the immediacy of frantic finishes. By allowing teams in the lead to avoid five-second calls, tie-ups, and turnovers after getting trapped they reduce the chances of a trailing team coming back.
  • All remaining timeouts before the last five minutes take the place of media timeouts. The timeout-ten-seconds-of-play-timeout thing is an awful frustration in the middle of the game.
  • Media timeouts are every five minutes, not four.
  • If you want to shorten the shot clock to 30 seconds, okay I guess. I was previously opposed to this since it would lead to more ugly late clock shots from college basketball outfits without guys who are particularly good at isolation, but the stats over the 15 years suggest that basketball could withstand a slight dip in efficiency okay.

You'll give up some money initially, but increased competition for fewer spots will make up some of it—you're still the only live game in town these days—and increased ratings from being less positively insufferable to watch will support the rest. As a side benefit, people will be more inclined to watch your games when they consist largely of game instead of t-shirt cannon.

The game is the same. It is eerily the same. If there's a difference it's in the stuff in between the game.

Comments

Letsgoblue2004

March 16th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^

Over 9 ppg/team (18 ppg overall) more than they average now. That is a massive difference.  My BOTE estimation for possessions/game in 1991 is 75/game, a huge difference from 2002 (69/game), and a jaw-dropping difference from 2015 (64.8/game). 

 

Again, watch some major games from the early 1990s. It was a totally different game. 

Gulogulo37

March 17th, 2015 at 3:46 AM ^

Exactly. I don't know basketball well enough to comment on the quality of the game now compared to then, but one guy talked about how their were more blocks and steals and fast breaks. Well if you wanma see a bunch of that, put a team of guys like me out there against Kentucky. It'll break records for "entertaining" plays. Guys getting blocks in their face or having the ball stolen sounds like reckless play.

stephenrjking

March 16th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^

I agree that there isn't that much that needs to change. I do, however, find the default "it's the ADs that are the problem" explanation inappropriate here. Late-game basketball has long been hard to watch, and that is a structural problem basketball has that is difficult to change without fundamentally altering the nature of the game. The exception is the number of times out, which I would love to see reduced. Long replay reviews are a drag and a problem. Of course, the alternative is that crucial officiating decisions would be more likely to be wrong. That's the tradeoff. Until someone innovatively streamlines the replay concept and applies it to basketball, this is what we're stuck with. I want faster finishes too, but I want decisions to be correct most. Would we trade a sleepy four-minute stoppage to have that bogus foul called on Burke's clean block of Seva reversed? Yes. I do favor a shorter shot clock. A cerebral coach like Beilein may use all of the clock now, but he would do just fine with five or nine fewer seconds. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

petered0518

March 16th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^

This is somewhat tangential to the article, but I don't know where else to ask.

A while ago in one of his numerous Brandon criticism pieces Brian referenced something (an article? a book? I can't remember) that talked about how modern companies have begun to focus on short term financials rather than care about the quality of their product. This is hurting the long term viability of these companies because eventually their product is crap and they can't compete even though they maximized profits for a few years.

Does anyone know the source that he was referencing? I have seen this trend in a number of areas and I would love to read the full article (or whatever it is). Any help would be much appreciated.

champswest

March 16th, 2015 at 2:27 PM ^

players a chance to catch their breath, but not any more.  Now coaches hoard them so that they can use them in the final 2 minutes to stop the clock and draw up plays.

I would change the 5 TOs per half to 2 regular TOs and 3 Clock Stoppers Only.  On the CSOs, the ball is put back into play immediately just like any other dead ball situation.  Players don't get to go to the bench, the ref blows the whistle and starts the 5 second count.  Therefor, you can still use the CSOs to stop the clock, avoid the held ball call, avoid the 5 second call and other situations, but we all don't have to sit through 2 or 3 minutes of commercials and waste 6 minutes to see the last minute of the game.

effchops

March 16th, 2015 at 2:28 PM ^

Start small and eliminate the ability for a team to call a timeout after they make a basket.  I would love to see a stat for how many of the under a minute timeouts are called by the team that just made a basket.  

Alton

March 16th, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^

I can't believe that this is permitted. 

Although I generally oppose any talk of "let's change the rules to make it more like the NBA," this is one rule difference that the NBA gets right:  you lose possession as soon as the ball goes through the hoop, and you can't call timeout without possession.

steve sharik

March 16th, 2015 at 2:34 PM ^

Why? Because coaches have realized the value of quality of possessions, which means getting good shots; i.e. 3 pointers and close to the basket. Every player on offense is positioned to get the ball where he can make an open shot. But there aren't as many open shots. So the solution, in my opinion, is to alter the rules to create more open shots. The best way to do that is to make the defense cover more ground. Therefore, I would get rid of the 3-second violation, and move the 3-point line to NBA distance. Right now it's too easy for helping defense to close out from helping on a big man on the block to a shooter only 21 feet from the hoop.

TheLastHarbaugh

March 16th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^

College basketball is awful. I know people on MGo generally dislike the NBA, but for the love of god, how many of you actually watch it night to night like I do (outside of Pistons games)? Probably not a lot.

The NBA is vastly, vastly superior in every way. The players play harder, play smarter, give more effort on D (if you disagree you don't watch enough NBA ball). They're better coached. They know how to play the game the right way (Spurs ball, aka team ball, has made a major ressurgence). It's just an all around vastly superior product and far more enjoyable to watch.

I loooooove basketball. It's my favorite sport by far. 

I cannot watch college basketball outside of U of M. I just can't. The coaching is terrible. The play is obscenely bad, and the players generally have no idea what they're doing. For someone with a keen basketball eye, it's just really hard to watch. This is repeated amongst most basketball people and people I know personally who are primo basketball fans. 

Something needs to change. I've personally advocated for the Bill Simmons (and, IIRC Charles Barkley) system.

Essentially, you create a pre-draft board of "basketball experts." Former players, coaches, GMs, just basketball people. The way it works is this...

Anyone can ATTEMPT to go pro at any time, however, the committee acts as a safeguard. You submit your film to them and they decide if you're ready to go pro or not. Anyone with at least 2 years of college experience can declare for the NBA draft automatically, but anyone with less experience has to pass the board evaluation.

So people like LeBron or Anthony Davis, who abso-fucking-lutely don't need to go to college if they don't want to, can avoid the NCAA sham if they so choose. Meanwhile, players who are severely overhyped will get a reality check and told they need a year (or perhaps two) of seasoning in the NCAA.

I think it works. I hope it happens. The way things are now...it's clearly broken. 

TheLastHarbaugh

March 16th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^

But even that isn't true. I watch every (yes every) single Pistons game. They're no different from any college team. Sometimes they play hard. Sometimes they don't show up. No one who has watched U of M every game this year can say differently. There have been times where we were playing our asses off, and there were times when it seems like only a couple of guys gave a shit.

That's not an indictment on coaching, or the players. That's simply basketball. Young players don't always have the most consistency. It's up to the coaches to bring it out of them. Often times that's what separates rookies/youngins from vets.

It's also far easier to get guys ready to play every night for a 30 game season than an 82 game season. But somehow, IMO, NBA teams regularly seem better coached and more well prepared. 

As a dyed in the wool Pistons fan, SVG is an amazing coach. I watch every single Pistons game (to the point of ridicule and laughter at times from the board). SVG is undoubtedly out there every night as one of the best and most forward thinking coaches (similar to John Beilein) but if you don't have the horses, you simply don't have the horses. The Pistons play hard for Stan, but they're extremely young, and all that goes with that.

Basketball is simultaneously easy to figure out and yet extremely difficult to comprehend. It's about chemistry as much as talent and discipline as much as creativity.

If you watch both, in a lot of ways, JB and SVG are similar. Shoot a lot of 3s, and work for a lot of layups and dunks (and free throws). SVG and JB are advanced metrics darlings as coaches. They've both been way ahead of their time in terms of basketball strategy.

However, bsketball has alwys been a player driven sport, and you need the prerequisite skills/athleticism to compete at the highest level. That's why some coaches can look like geniuses one year and like morons the next. You need the horses to pull the carriage. 

Space Coyote

March 16th, 2015 at 3:37 PM ^

Simply because there isn't as much time to run a complete set or multiple sets in one shot clock. Sets are shorter and generally quicker to get into and then resort to an isolation or two-man game.

The NBA can get away with that because the players are so good. They can hit contested shots and off-balance shots like no one in the college game. They can make isolations look good and look good quickly. It's not a rules thing, it's a talent level thing. And I don't think it translates to the college game as well as a lot of NBA advocates like to make it out. They prefer the NBA game but forget that the NBA game requires NBA talent to make enjoyable.

ST3

March 16th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^

so, make it more like soccer? Got it.

I was not a soccer fan growing up, but I've learned to appreciate the fact that you can sit down and watch a half for 45 minutes, take a little break, and watch another 45 minutes of continuous, commercial-free, timeout-free, action. They seem to have figured out how to do it. CBB could learn a few lessons from soccer.

ESNY

March 16th, 2015 at 2:54 PM ^

Agreed, the game itself is generally fine (withholding comment on inconsistent officiating) but watching the game is getting brutal and really stems from two things, timeouts and reviews.

As you said, there are just way too many timeouts.  Do coaches really need five timeouts and four TV timeouts in 20 minutes of gameplay?   I would make it three timeouts, at most, and if a team calls a timeout when a TV timeout would be called, that should count instead of having two stoppages in play in 20 seconds.  The same thing for when a game hasn't stopped between two TV timeouts, tough shit networks, you lose (I think it happened in the Mich vs. Wisco game where the game didn't stop for the 12 min TV timeout, so both the 12 and 8 occurred with less than 8 min to go.

Reviews need to be dramatically toned down too.  They should not spend 5 minutes trying to figure out if there were 9.8 or 9.9 seconds left when the ball went through the hoop.  Unless the refs has reason to thing the clock is dramatically wrong or the OOB call was wrong, they should not review it.  Also limit reviews to 30 seconds.  If you can tell by looking at one or two angles, call stands.

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

March 16th, 2015 at 3:31 PM ^

One thing it's worth pointing out: Lacrosse is undergoing the same "crisis."  I don't think it's sport-specific, for what that's worth, I think it's a thing where coaches know that slowing the game down is better for their team.  Which makes the idea of writing rules to force a more free-flowing game, basically pushing against the tides.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

March 16th, 2015 at 4:25 PM ^

The NBA, no, actually not so much.  The NBA was a much faster, higher-scoring game 20 and 30 years ago, too.  Teams averaged 106 points a game in 1990.  Pace and scoring are way down.  They bottomed out about 10 years ago and have been going upwards - and one thing that corresponds with that is the age limit, among other things.  Rule changes helped, too.  The NFL has been almost steady.  Scoring is slightly up lately, by about a point or two per team, per game....and it happens to correspond almost exactly with a league-wide improvement in kicking accuracy.  College football is different, sure, because in college football, tempo actually works.  It doesn't work anywhere else.

And why should the low-talent teams be pushed against?  Viewership and interest in March Madness would probably plummet without upsets.  The first thing people talk about is who's most likely to get upset.  The first games they cut to are the ones where the high seed is in danger of dropping.  People loved the George Mason thing.  If the crisis is a lack of viewers, the #1 way by far to exacerbate it is to make upsets disappear.

Letsgoblue2004

March 16th, 2015 at 5:09 PM ^

in 2013-14. Pace bottomed out at 88.9 poss/48 in 1999, and has rebounded to 93.4 poss/48. Meanwhile the average age of a player has dropped by an entire year since 2000, so no, the age limit has nothing to do with it. 

 

In the NFL and in college football, both scoring and offensive efficency have increased.  Teams averaged 5.5 yards per play in 2014, a full .5 yard per play more than they averaged in 2000. 

 

The year George Mason made the F4 had one of the lowest TV ratings and lowest viewership in NCAA tournament history.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

March 16th, 2015 at 5:28 PM ^

I don't think so.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/04/march-madness-tv-ratings-final-…

Roll to the bottom.

Florida/George Mason outdrew UCLA/LSU that year.  It was the 9th-highest-rated FF game of 22 possible since 2004.  It outdrew Kansas/UNC, MSU/UConn, UNC/Villanova, and so on.

The pace of NBA play in 1990 was 98.3 possessions, so despite the higher numbers, the NBA isn't even halfway back.  Scoring right now is exactly the same as it was in 07-08, but pace is up, so why is it more appealing to watch more bricks?  And I'd say, yes, the age limit has a lot to do with it.  Arguably, if the average age is smaller yet there are no 18-year-olds in the league, that means players are retiring earlier, which means the league is doing a better job of identifying young talent and pushing out older players.

Letsgoblue2004

March 16th, 2015 at 6:33 PM ^

Scoring in the last full NBA season (13-14) was a full 2 ppg/team higher than it was in 2007-08.  The age limit has nothing to do with it, as 1) the average age has dropped, as I pointed out; 2) there is no evidence that teams draft "better" with one-and-done than they did with high schoolers or that it improves player development (quite the opposite, in fact); and 3) the 18 year olds who couldn't play right away didn't play. They mostly sat until they were 19. 

 

Look at the entire F4 in 2006.  Both games had massive declines in viewership from the previous year (1.2 million decline for the early game 4.4 million (!) decline for the late game). That was the F4 without a #1 seed since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, and the ratings for the F4 and Finals were historically awful, although the GM-UF game wasn't the leading driver of that. 

autodrip4-1968

March 16th, 2015 at 6:10 PM ^

I like the five minute increments. Love to see the coach's not allowed to call timeouts at all. That's what practice is for. Allow the player's to think for themselves. If you can't play four minutes without a timeout too bad. That's what a point guard is for to see the team through those four minute periods. Refs need to be with the tv guy's when reviewing a bang, bang play's. Off the subject I would like to see coach's not allowed to stand up during the action. They can stand during timeouts. Some of these dudes are ridiculous with there pacing and wanderings. Team's should be prepared for every situation on the floor,if not too bad you lose the game. A thirty second clock would be nice.